
1 


t 



\ 



I 

i 

I 

t 


* I 













r-. 

•9 


9 i 

4 T 


»'"•> :• - rrt,* 

* '*• ‘ • , . ■^.« • I « • 

M > .... 

- J., : -9,riTr2. Sf ^ * ■ ■ 




• ♦’ >' V ^ ‘ -• • 

■•*^*/' ,, i ’ 


r^'V .- - 
.T’t-iV- • ■* 

I? 


'■ i'; ■ •'• ‘ 

■ - . 




yg]. 


4 

i f 


. • • 

. '* ••’*.* 



■ V,*' 3 *''' 

. V . .‘ •'r '■ 




- - 



^ » 

.* • 

t." ■ 


N » 




* hr 


j';i‘ 





Ky 4x ^ 



1 ;i • ’ %!'? ‘ * \ 

r- •: >•' 


-w' < «, 

-.^‘- 

■» t* .r { 


f V 



' -'TV?*" 

V'/ ^ 


^* * 


fVj 

A^^rv.;,' 



fc* ■fr . «■ ■ - *J' 

• ‘ * * ' ) 

-t. 




S*.' . ji’ 


m 


c. 


^4 # 




■ ■ ■. ■ 


w 'Jlr \ • -* 

• ‘ '' jar?- 


< H' 5 


. I 


*Al 


■ 


#1^ V / 
V 


% 


> 


.<»- 


- k 


.•> % t 




v* i * . 


%ry s 

:'r- 


»> * ‘ 

t 

■ ..X a'- ''. ‘ 

•4 


A 

•« 

rr -.. 

• *• 

• * 




rf. • 

» ■* ^ ■W' • 


■* *tv # ■%■ 


L • 

g 






7?' 


•» sr^mA > , ^ irv 

-■-V. - A-W'fe.*:-'#:-. 

•- , . - i •> It; ;v. / '.'^r . r , ■ 

. -N 






/ 


60 th Congress, ) 

SENATE. 

{Document 

1st Session. ) 


1 No. 516. 




MEMORIAL OF IJTITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE OF AMERICA 
RELATIVE TO A NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


Mr. Owen presented the following 


Y24'' 

^ j/ f 


MEMORIAL RELATIVE TO A NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND 
REFERENDUM. 


May 25, 1908.— Ordered to be printed. 


MEllfORIAL TO CONGRESS RELATIVE TO A NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND 
REFERENDUM. 

[Senate bill 7208 and Joint Resolution 94.] 

To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled: 

The undersigned respectfully memorialize you for the passage of 
Senate bill No. 7208, ^‘For a modern System whereby the voters of 
the United States may instruct their National Representatives,” and 
Senate Joint Resolution No. 94, asking the States to establish the 
machinery for taldng a referendum vote on national issues whenever 
Congress shall so direct. 

It is conceded by the leading men of both the great parties that the 
need of the times is to decentralize our system of government. There 
should be restored to the legislative, executive, and judicial depart¬ 
ments such powers as will result in the people’s protection. That the 
people are being taxed by some of the private corporations is admitted; 
as also is the fact that the men and women who produce our country’s 
wealth are outlawed from combining to maintain a reasonable price 
for their products, while the few great capitalist-monopolists are by 
extremely ingenious commercial devices and wonderfully crafty 
schemes appropriating a grossly unjust part of the proceeds of their 
labor. 

The remedy we propose is advocated by the farmers and wage- 
earners of the country and by hosts of business men, because it will 
restore their sovereignty. In behalf of these people our bill and 
joint resolution suggests that there be reestablished a system wherein 
the voters shall possess an option to ballot directly on national ques¬ 
tions, to be used in combination with Congress. A Federal statute, 
and a statute in each State to provide the machinery for taking a 
referendum vote whenever Congress shall order it, is all that is 
required at the start. Our bill proposes the Federal law, and the 
joint resolution requests the States to provide the referendum machin¬ 
ery, thus leaving it in the control of the States except that the time 

C 










2 




NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 






for taking the referendum vote is indicated. Congress can consti¬ 
tutionally indicate the details, for it has sovereign power in Federal 
affairs. Most of the details in Federal elections are managed by 
State officials, but the Federal Government has deemed it expedient 
to specify more and more of the requirements. The facts are set 
forth in “Notes on the United States Reports” (vol. 9, pp. 839-840). 


IS CONSTITUTIONAL, AND WILL BE EFFECTIVE. 

The direct voting by the people on national issues is to be advisory 
only, and therefore the system can be established by Federal statute. 
The Federal Government, within the scope of its powers, is supreme, 
and consequently is empowered to provide a system for advisory vot¬ 
ing by the people on national issues. The electors’ vote will not 
attempt to legally bind Congress, therefore no constitutional pro¬ 
vision will be infringed. The system, however, will be effective, for 
candidates for the House and Senate will be pledged in writing to 
obey instructions—that is, obey the will of their constituents when 
expressed by referendum vote. 

Express authority in the Federal Constitution for instructions to 
Members of Congress is the ninth amendment, as follows: 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny 
or disparage others retained by the people. 

Among the rights which the people thus retained is the right to in¬ 
struct. This is evidenced by the fact that at the time this amendment 
was adopted the bill of rights in four of the State constitutions, 
namely, of North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New 
Hampshire, expressly reserved the right to instruct, and in all the 
other States the right was actually exercised. This is admitted in 
the debates in the First Congress, August 15, 1789. James Madison 
objected to stating in the Federal Constitution that the people’s right 
to assemble to instruct representatives should not be infringed, be¬ 
cause to thus admit the right to instruct would obligate us, he said, 
“ to run the risk of losing the whole system.” In other words, the 
Federalists aimed to suppress the right to instruct, and Madison and 
his fellow-Federalists succeeded in defeating the amendment then 
under discussion, namely, that the right to instruct should be ex¬ 
pressly stated in the bill of rights, but the people’s interests were 
secured in the ninth amendment, above quoted. 


NOT AN EXPERIMENT. 

The essential features of the system we propose have been installed 
in five States for State and municipal issues. The States are Oregon, 
South Dakota, Oklahoma, Montana, and Illinois. Illinois has the 
statutory system, similar to the one we suggest, and the other four 
States have constitutional amendments with statutory details. In 
Maine and Missouri the last legislature submitted constitutional 
amendments for the initiative and referendum. In North Dakota 
the last legislature submitted to the incoming legislature a proposal 
that it submit to the people a constitutional amendment for the 
initiative and referendum. In Pennsylvania the last house by unan¬ 
imous vote passed a bill for the initiative and referendum in cities 
and boroughs. In Delaware the last legislature by unanimous vote 


,uu 1 1903 
D. Of U 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


o 
O 

established the initiative and referendum in Wilmington—the largest 
city in the State. In all the other States the movement is far ad¬ 
vanced, and many of the members of your honorable body favor a 
national system. , 

CHAMPIONED BY EMINENT STATESMEN. 

For example, Senator Hopkins, in his canvass for election six years 
ago, said: 

I do not agree with Alexander Hamilton, that the people can not be trusted. I think 
the experience of more than a hundred years under our constitutional form of govern¬ 
ment has demonstrated beyond all question that upon all great national issues the 
consensus of opinion of the great mass of the people has proven better than the judg¬ 
ment of a single man or set of men, I care not how eminent they may have been. 

I favor any principle, I care not what it may be called, that will enlarge the power 
of the people on all questions. State and national, that affect the well-being of the 
citizens. (The Beacon, Aurora, Ill., October 21, 1902.) 

In the campaign of 1800 Thomas Jefferson helped to restore the 
people’s rule and in his inaugural address he said: 

Absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of repub¬ 
lics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent 
of despotism, I deem (one of the) essential principles of our Government and, conse¬ 
quently, (one) which ought to shape its administration. 

In Jefferson’s day the people instructed at will, as is evidenced by 
his statement to John Taylor: 

Your book (An Inquiry into the Principles of Our Government) setth's unanswer¬ 
ably the right of instructing representatives, and their duty to obey. 

Jefferson also said: 

My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to 
the maximum of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our Government 
may be pure and perpetual. (Letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.) 

Abraham Lincoln believed in the people’s rule. He was not a fol¬ 
lower of Alexander Hamilton. He said: ‘'The principles of Jefferson 
are the definitions and axioms of free society.” (Complete work§, vol. 
16, p. 263.) Lincoln’s most earnest desire was that “government of 
the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the 
earth.” 

Statements by many of the present-day Senators and Representa¬ 
tives are in later paragraphs, together with a list of 114 Members of 
the House who favor the restoration of majority rule. Thirty-five 
of these are Republicans, 79 are Democrats. 

DETAILS OF PROPOSED SYSTEM. 

In the Federal statute we propose the details are carefully worked 
out. The signatures to each petition are to be verified under oath, 
as is the case in Oregon and Oklahoma, Petitions are to be filed 
with the Secretary of State, with provision for testing the sufficiency 
thereof before a Federal judge, and right of appeal to the Supreme 
Court, the case to have precedence over all others. The title of each 
measure submitted is to be framed by a United States circuit judge, 
with provision for appeal to the Supreme Court. Copies of initiative 
measures are to be promptly transmitted to your honorable body, 
where the usual committee hearing can be had and a competing 
measure framed if you so desire. In every case an argument for and 


4 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


against each measure is to be prepared. This important work is 
to be performed by two committees, one representing the petitioners 
and the other yourself. It is proposed, too, that the argument 
shall be limited to 2,000 words for a side, of which one-fourth may 
be in answer to opponents’ arguments. Then the joint argument 
is to be printed, along with the text of the measure and sample 
ballot, and a copy of the pamphlet shall then be mailed to each 
voter. This is the only way that the truth can reach the voters. 
Furthermore, it is the least e:jq)ensive method, and each voter will 
pay his share, for it will be at Government expense. This will be far 
preferable to granting a Government subsidy to the political parties, 
as proposed by President Roosevelt and others. 

Bills and constitutional amendments thus submitted will be open 
for further discussion for at least three months, and on election day 
the ignorant and careless voters will, as usual, fail to mark their ref¬ 
erendum ballots. This will leave the decision with the intelligent 
voters. 

THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. 

Compare the above with the existing system. The party platforms 
submit national issues, but there is no way whereby the people can 
vote separately on them. This crude method can not continue, for 
a better one is developed. This is demonstrated in Oregon and all 
the other States, for they use the referendum ballot in amending the 
State constitution and voting upon bond issues and for other impor¬ 
tant measures. Iowa, for example, at each election has a separate 
referendum ballot in addition to the one for candidates. National 
issues must also be separated out. The larger the nation and the 
more complicated its civilization the greater the need. If this year’s 
national issues could be directly submitted could anyone doubt the 
result? In Oregon two years ago the vote to tax the monopoly cor¬ 
porations that were escaping taxation was 11 to 1. The corporations 
did not spend a cent in the campaign. Their attorney when asked 
about it said, ‘‘What’s the use!” 

In order that you may more fully realize the existing political 
situation we shall briefly sketch our country’s political history. 

OUR country’s POLITICAL HISTORY. 

I.— Debased Party Government, 1844-1908. 

The existing system of centralized power was established in national 
affairs in 1844, and has steadily grown worse. The change was 
effected without a constitutional amendment and without even a 
Federal statute, merely by an order of the national committee of the 
Democratic party. In issuing the call for the election of delegates 
to the national convention of 1844 it provided that they should no 
longer be fresh from the people, but three and in some cases four 
times reinoved, in order to thwart the people’s will. The way it 
was done is described in the writings of John C. Calhnun and Thomas 
II. Benton. Calhoun said: 

I hold it impossible to form a scheme more perfectly calculated to annihilate the 
control of the people over the Presidential election and vest it in those who make 
P'ditics a trade, and who live or expect to live on the Government. (Benton’s Thirty 
Years in the United States Senate, vol. 2, p. 596,) 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 5 

II-—State and National Nominating Conventions in Their Purity, 1823 to 1844. 

The State and national nominating conventions had arisen during 
the years 1823 to 1832, in place of party caucuses in the legislatures 
and in Congress. The system was a vast improvement until so 
changed that the people could not rule. 

III. —The System oe Government, 1776-1832. 

When the State and National party conventions arose the voters 
ceased to exercise their right to instruct the members of the legis¬ 
latures and of Congress, for the pressing issues were considered by 
the State and national conventions. Previous to this the members 
of the legislatures and of the National House were pledged by dis¬ 
tricts, and the voters instructed them at will, except during the Fed¬ 
eralists’ regime. Instructions were given through the town meetings 
in New England and elsewhere at mass meetings. But the mere 
existence of this power in the people was usually all that was required, 
just as Congress always bears in mind the President’s veto power. 

IV. —History of the Changes. 

These changes in our system of government are not generally known. 
It was 1888 before the debased party government was fully described. 
That year there was published a two-volume work by Hon. James 
Bryce, of England, ^^The American Commonwealth.” His complete 
and fearless exposure of the then ruling few—and they the crafty and 
unscrupulous ones—raised up a reform spirit which has continued to 
the present day and with increasing power. But Mr. Bryce did not 
point out, nor has there yet been published a collection of the evi¬ 
dence demonstrating that the Revolutionary patriots and their 
immediate descendants possessed a system through which they 
instructed at will and therefore were the ruling power. This proof 
has been collected and we will soon publish it. Until now the 
isolated facts had not been brought together, for the historians of 
the past fifty years have been hving amid the powerful few and have 
omitted this data, just as they did that concerning machine and boss 
rule until Mr. Bryce’s book was published. 

V.—Effect of Proof that the People Ruled. 

This proof of the former existence of a direct-vote system in our 
country’s government places the opponents of the initiative and refer¬ 
endum in an entirely different position. They have been asserting 
that the prevailing system of government in this country has existed 
since the days of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, and 
therefore that the advocates of the initiative and referendum are 
asking for a new system. But now our opponents’ claim as to the 
earlier form of government is disproved. For fifty-four years the 
Revolutionary forefathers and their descendants possessed an option 
to vote directly on public questions, which is the distinguishing 
feature of the initiative and referendum. Therefore no new prin¬ 
ciple of government is involved. Besides the opening programme 
for national affairs, and in some of the States, is merely for the 
restoration of the right to instruct the men in office. That is the 
issue. 


6 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


The earlier system whereby the voters instructed the representa¬ 
tives in the legislatures and in Congress was the town meeting in New 
England, and elsewhere the mass meeting, as we have said, and the 
United States Senators from each State were subject to instructions 
by the legislature. At no time have the legislatures lost this power. 

RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO INSTRUCT. 

In Illinois the people have restored the right to instruct. They 
did so during 1901. Thesystem is the advisory initiative—that is, it is 
the same as the initiative except that the people’s vote is advisory, but 
the system is effective wherever the candidates are pledged to obey 
instructions—pledged that, if elected, they will obey the will of their 
constituents when expressed by referendum vote. Through this 
advisory system and the pledging of candidates the questions in con¬ 
nection with the street railway francliises in Chicago were decided 
by the voters. In Detroit the advisory initiative and the pledging 
of candidates has placed the voters in control. In Delaware the 
people have instructed the legislature and governor to install the 
advisory initiative and advisory referendum. In your National 
House 114 of the 391 Members are pledged to install the advisory 
initiative for eight topics and the advisory referendum for acts of 
Congress and for bills passed by either House. This year our bill is 
broader because the people’s rule h^s become the paramount issue. 
We ask for the advisory initiative and advisory referendum and hope 
to install it as the result of this year’s campaign. Merely a Federal 
statute and State statutes are required. Our plan for securing the 
required vote in the Senate will presently be stated. 

STRATEGIC FEATURES IN WORKING FOR ADVISORY INITIATIVE. 

The advisory initiative is frequently misunderstood. It is used 
merely as the first step in the people’s rule movement, because it 
can be installed by a majority vote and at once; whereas the initia¬ 
tive and referendum system is the result of a constitutional amend¬ 
ment, which requires for its submission a two-thirds vote in the 
legislature or Congress, followed by ratification by the people, and 
then a statute must be enacted setting forth the details. The 
advisory system starts in with these details and thus saves four or 
more years’ time. The system is effective if candidates are pledged 
to obey instructions, and can at once be used to initiate effective 
legislative reforms and constitutional amendments. These amend¬ 
ments and bills will be drafted by the people and not by their ene¬ 
mies, as might sometimes occur and does often occur where they are 
framed in the legislature. 

These strategic features are all-important, as, also, is the further 
fact that the system can be established as the result of a single 
campaign, which tends to make it the paramount issue. The initia¬ 
tive and referendum can not become the overshadowing issue because 
it requires years to install the system; while in Federal affairs, under 
existing party government, it is practically impossible to secure a 
constitutional, amendment for the initiative and referendum. 


national initiative and referendum. 


7 


BETTER THAN A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 

Another feature of the advisory initiative is that it is better than 
a constitutional convention, because there is no monopoly of the 
power to propose amendments. In the proposed national system 
any group of 650,000 voters can propose an amendment. To secure 
so many signatures will prevent the presentation of frivolous ques¬ 
tions, while the plan for ascertaining the exact facts and getting them 
before the voters will insure good results. This feature is all- 
important. 

CONSERVATIVELY PROGRESSIVE. 

The advisory initiative will also be conservatively progressive, for, 
of course, the constitutional limitations against confiscation will re¬ 
main intact, the Supreme Court firmly stand, and both the Executive 
Department and Congress will be controlled by an old-line party. 
But the people will have again become the sovereign power. They 
can get what they want. 

THE ARGUMENTS. 

The opponents of the people’s rule are advancing all sorts of false 
theories, as heretofore, hoping to deceive the people. Facts are con¬ 
cealed. Men of straw are put up and knocked down. 

We who present the people’s case are pointing to the facts of his¬ 
tory. We refer to the actual results of the people’s rule, namely, for 
its three periods. The first began in 1776 and ended in 1798, when 
the Federalist party came fully into power. The second people’s- 
rule epoch began March 4, 1801, and continued in national affairs till 
1844. The third period commenced in 1898 in South Dakota. At 
that time the initiative and referendum system was installed. 

Our opponents omit all reference to these historical facts or mis¬ 
represent them. 

The facts are that during the first half of our country’s history 
there was a termination of special privileges in all directions. Primo¬ 
geniture was abolished, entails were terminated, church and state 
were separated and religious freedom established, and the free public 
school system was installed. This led the way to the termination of 
special privileges among male voters—manhood suffrage was in¬ 
stalled, and then under Jackson’s leadership occurred ^^The uprising 
of a free people.” 

Contrast that splendid record, with its absence of war and carnage, 
with the rule of the few since 1844. 

Under the rule of the few the tendency has been toward special 
privileges, corruption, and war. So great have these evils become 
that all should welcome the peaceful and orderly solution that will 
come with the restoration of the people’s rule. The change has come 
in Oregon, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Montana, Illinois, and Switzer¬ 
land. A new civilization is being developed—a free people are living 
under modern industrial conditions. We urge your honorable body 
to restore the people’s-rule system in national affairs. If you refuse 
you must make up your minds that when you stand for reelection 
you will be questioned. You will be explicitly asked: “ If the people 


8 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND EEFERENDUM. 


will elect you, will you vote to restore their freedom And your 
position will be reported to the voters, who, on election day, will be 
the ruling power. It is reasonably sure that more than a majority 
will vote for their own sovereignty. Thus they can free themselves. 

Five appendices are herewith attached, namely, a copy each of the 
resolutions for the initiative and referendum principles by the Na¬ 
tional Grange, and the American Federation of Labor, also excerpts 
from the Referendum News for September, 1906, and November, 
1906, with additional data interleaved, including statements by Jus¬ 
tice Brewer and Senator La Follette; and a statement of reasons 
why the South needs the restoration of majority rule for national 
issues. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Initiative and Referendum League of America, 

By Geo. H. Shibley, 

President 

Robt. L. Owen, 

I Chairman National Committee. 

Washington, D. C., May 25, 1908. 


Appendix I. 

THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 

THE NATIONAL GRANGE ADOPTS A FAVORABLE RESOLUTION. 

Resolution introduced by Obadiah Gardiner, of the Maine Grange, reported fa¬ 
vorably by the committee on resolutions and passed unanimously by the national 
body at its forty-first annual session at Hartford, Conn., November, A. D. 1907. 

Whereas the initiative and referendum, during the forty years of its gradual spread 
in the cities. States, and Federal Government of Switzerland, have educated the 
people and purified their government; 

Whereas the initiative and referendum have worked well wherever adopted in 
cities and States of America, notably in Oregon and South Dakota; 

Whereas the principle of the initiative and referendum is a conservative applica¬ 
tion of the principle of the New England town meeting, a safe extension of self-govern¬ 
ment to the larger population of cities and States; 

Whereas the legislature of the State of Maine, after an experience with the town¬ 
meeting principle, as old as the State of Maine itself, has submitted to the people an 
amendment to its constitution extending so far as possible that town-meeting prin¬ 
ciple to the voters of cities and the State, through the initiative and referendum; 

Resolved, That we favor the discussion of the initiative and referendum in the 
granges. 


Appendix II. 

PEOPLE’S RULE PROGRAMME OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. 

The Twenty-seventh Annual Convention of the American Federation of Labor, at 
Norfolk, November, 1907, adopted by unanimous vote the following resolution, 
No. Ifil; 

Whereas the nonpartisan movement for installing the initiative and referendum in 
our country’s government^started by our convention in 1892, and accentuated in 1901 
by President Gompers, the executive council, and the annual convention, has since 
been taken up by most of the nonpartisan organizations that are opposed to the ruling 
few, and during the past year the movement reached a place where it was sweeping 




INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


9 


everything before it, which caused the monopolists and their attorneys to openly 
combat it or suffer immediate and complete defeat; and 
Whereas the issue is so clear that t»he monopolists’ deceptive arguments have not 
stayed the tide, which should be augmented by the systematic questioning of the 
candidates that are to come before the primaries and conventions of the parties not yet 
pledged to the people’s rule, each candidate’s attitude to be reported to the voters, 
followed at a later day by the questioning of the nominees, State and national, and the 
widespread publication of their replies; and 
Whereas for the purpose of organizing the liberty-loving people of this country to 
systematically do this work throughout the United States, also to publish and dis¬ 
tribute a campaign text-book, and for the interrogating, funds are absolutely necessary, 
and, as the object is to terminate special privileges, the funds must come from the people 
in general, including trade unionists: Therefore be it 

Resolved, By the American Federation of Labor in convention assembled at Norfolk,, 
that our executive council be directed to issue in behalf of this nonpartisan initiative 
and referendum movement an appeal for funds, and to mail a copy to each affiliated 
union, including the locals attached to the internationals and nationals, also to such 
of the societies of equity, farmers’ unions, granges, woman suffrage associations, and 
other organizations as it may deem advisable, using, if thought best, a News Letter, 
entered as second-class mail matter, which publication may be issued as frequently 
as the needs of the situation may demand, provided the entire cost be defrayed from 
the special fund; and 

Resolved, That the appeal shall designate a trade-union official to receive trade-union 
funds, the disbursement of which shall be by order of the executive council, or a com¬ 
mittee to be named by it; also that the executive council be authorized to take such 
additional nonpartisan action as in its judgment will promote the cause; and 
Resolved, That every voter in the land is urged to agree with his fellow-citizens that 
he will vote only for such candidates and nominees as are pledged to the restoration 
of the people’s rule. To-day, as in 1776, the establishment of political liberty is the 
paramount issue. Why should voters choose between would-be rulers, when they can 
at once become the sovereign power? And, 

Be it further resolved, That we proclaim to the world that the epoch-making achieve¬ 
ment of restoring self-government to the American people will not be due to any 
political party, but to the nonpartisan movement, a leading part of which is the fed¬ 
erated trade unions. 


Appendix III. 

[From the Referendum News, November, 190G.] 

SWEEPING VICTORIES FOR INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 

In the recent election there was a sweeping victory for the people’s rule. Six 
States were carried for some form of the initiative and referendum, and nationally 
107 Members of the next House are pledged. This is the revised report. At first it 
was stated that 104 were pledged. Early next year Oklahoma will elect 5 Congress¬ 
men, all of whom will doubtless be pledged. [Four are pledged, also 3 from other 
States, making a total of 114.] _ , , -rr • . 

The report as a whole shows a fourfold gain in the National House in two years, 
while the number of States that are assured of political freedom is doubled in two 
years. If this rate of increase continues for another two years—and there is every 
reason to believe that it will—there will be a majority vote in Congress and a pledged 
President, with twenty-four States in the initiative and referendum column. 

The issue to which the 107 Members of Congress are committed is to restore to the 
people a system whereby they can instruct by direct ballot on measures concerning 
interstate commerce (the trusts), civil service, immigration, trial by jury, or any 
modification of the law of injunction, eight-hour day in Goyernment-contract work, 
and the submission of constitutional amendments for the initiative and referendum, 
election of United States Senators by the people, and election of fourth-class post¬ 
masters by the patrons of each office. , , ^ f 

The names of Members of the next House who thus stand for the restoration of 
majority rule are herewith presented. Each of those who were opposed by a nominee 
of one of the two great parties and who refused to pledge are in italics; those who were 
elected in districts where both the leading nominees were pledged are marked with 
a star (*)• where a statement favorable to the initiative and referendum principle has 
been given after a report was issued it is indicated by a dagger (f), and where there 
was no opponent or he was unknown at the office of the National federation there 



10 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM 


IS no star or dagger. In a few instances there is no formal pledge. In some cases there 
is no limitation to the number of topics to which the direct-vote system shall apply 
at the start. 


ROLL OF HONOR. 


ALABAMA. 

Districts. 

1. George W. Taylor, M. C., Democrat. 

2. Ariosto A. Wiley, M. C., Democrat. 

5. J. Thomas Heflin, M. C., Democrat. 

6. R. P. Uohson, Democrat. 

ARKANSAS. 

1. Robert Bruce Macon, M. C.,* Democrat. 

2. Stephen Brundidge, M. C., Democrat. 

3. John C. Floyd, M. C., Democrat. 

6. Joseph T. Robinson, M. C., Democrat. 

CALIFORNIA. 

4. Julius Kahn, M. C.,* Republican. 

CONNECTICUT. 

At large. George L. Lilley, M. C.,t Republican. 

FLORIDA. 

3. W. B. Lamar, M. C.,t Democrat. 

GEORGIA. 

10. T. W. Hardwick,t Democrat. 

ILLINOIS. 

4. J. T, MacDermott, Democrat. 

5. A. J. Sabath,* Democrat. 

7. Philip Knopf, M. C.,* Republican. 

20. H. T. Rainey, M. C., Democrat. 

21. B. F. Caldwell, Democrat. 

23. M. D. Foster, Democrat. 

INDIANA. 

3. W. E. Cox, Democrat. 

4. Lincoln Dixon, M. C., Democrat. 

8. J. A. M. Adair,* Democrat. 

11. Q. W. Rauch, Democrat. 

IOWA. 

2. Albert F. Dawson, M. C., Republican. 

6. D. D. Hamilton, Democrat. 

11. Elbert H. Hubbard, M. C., Republican. 

KENTUCKY. 

3. A. D. James,* Republican. 

4. Ben Johnson, Democrat. 

MAINE. 

1. Amos L. Allen, M. C.,* Republican. 

3. Edwin C. Burleigb, M. C.,* Republican. 

MARYLAND. 

2. J. F. C. Talbott, M. C., Democrat. 

6. George A. Pearre, M. C.,* Republican. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

11. A.J. Peters, Democrat. 

MICHIGAN. 

2. Charles E. Townsend, M. C., Republican. 

MINNESOTA. 


MISSOURI. 

Districts. 

1. J. T. Lloyd, M. C.,* Democrat. 

2. W. W. Rucker,* Democrat. 

3. J". W. Alexander, Democrat. 

4. Cljarles F. Booher,* Democrat. 

6. David A. De Armond, M. C., Democrat. 

7. Courtney W. Hamlin, Democrat. 

8. D. W. Shackleford, M. C., Democrat. 

9. Champ Clark, M. C., Democrat. 

10. Richard Bartholdt, M. C.,* Republican. 

13. M. R. Smith,* Democrat. 

14. J. J. Russell, Democrat. 

15. Thomas Hackney, Democrat. 

10. Robert Lamar, Democrat. 


NEBRASKA. 

2. Gilbert M. Hitchcock, Democrat. 

4. E. W. Hinshaw, M. C., Republican. 

NEW JERSEY. 

4. Ira W. Wood, M. C.,* Republican. 

0. Wm . Hughes, Democrat. 

8. Legage Pratt, Democrat. 

NEW YORK. 

2. Geo. H. Lindsay, M. C., Democrat. 

8. D.J. Riordan, Democrat. 

10. William Sulzer, M. C., Democrat. 

11. Charles V. Fornes, Democrat. 

14. William Willett, jr.. Democrat. 

10. Francis B. Harrison, Democrat. 

18. Joseph A. Goulden, M. C., Democrat. 
35. IF. II. Ryan, Democrat. 


NORTH CAROLINA. 

1. John H. Small, M. C.,* Democrat. 

4. E. W. Pou, M. C.,t Democrat. 

8. R. N. Hackett, Democrat. 

OHIO. 

4. W. W. Tou Velle,* Democrat. 

5. T. T. Ansberry, Democrat. 

0. M. R. Denver, Democrat. 

9. Isaac R. Sherwood, Independent Democrat. 
13. Grant E. Mouser, M. C.,* Republican. 

17. IF. A .Ashbrook, Democrat. 

18. James Kennedy, M. C.,* Republican. 

OKLAHOMA. 

Elmer L. Fulton. 

James S. Davenport. 

Charles D. Carter. 

Scott Ferriss. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

1. Henry H. Bingham, M. C.,* Republican. 

4. Reuben O. Moon, M. C., Republican. 

10. T. D. Nichols, Democrat. 

12. ('harles N. Brumm,* Republican. 

13. John H. Rotherme, Democrat. 

15. W.B. Wilson, Democrat. 

10. John G. McHenry,* Democrat. 

18. Marlin E. Olmsted, M. C.,* Republican. 

19. John M. Reynolds, M. C.,t Republican. 

21. C. F. Barclay,t Republican. 

22. Geo. F. HuU, M. C.,t Republican. 

RHODE ISLAND. 


5. F. M. Nye,* Republican. 

6. C. A. Lindbergh,* Republican. 


1. D.L.D. Granger, M. C., Democrat. 





NATIONAL. INITIATIVE AND KEPERENDUM. 


11 


SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Districts. 

3. Wyaft Aiken, M. C., Democrat. 

4. J. T. Johnson, M. C., Democrat. 

SOUTH DAKOTA. 

At large. Philo Hall,* Republican. 

At large. Wm. H. Parker,* Republican. 

TENNESSEE. 

2. Nathan W. Hale, M. C.,* Republican. 

3. John A. Moon, M. C., Democrat. 

5. William C. Houston, M. C.*t 

6. John Wesley Gaines, M. C., Democrat. 
8. F. W. Sims, M. C., Democrat. 

10. George W. Gordon, Democrat. 


TEXAS. 

1. Morris Sheppard, M. C., Democrat. 
8. John M. Moore, M. C., Democrat. 
14. J. L. Slayden, M. C.,t Democrat. 


VIRGINIA. 

Districts. 

2. Harry L. Maynard, M. C., Democrat. 

3. John Lamb, M. C., Democrat. 

5. E. W. Sanders, Democrat. 

7. James Hay, Democrat. 

WASHINGTON. 

At large. W. L. Jones, M. C., Republican, 

WEST VIRGINIA. 

2. Geo. C. Sturgiss,* Republican. 

WISCONSIN. 

1. Henry A. Cooper, M. C.,* Republican 

2. John M. Nelson,* Republican. 

3. J. Murphy, Democrat. 

4. William J. Cary,* Republican. 

6. Charles 11. Weisse, M. C.,* Democrat. 

8. Jas. H. Davidson, M. C., Republican. 

9. Gustav Kiistennann,* Republican. 

10. E. S. Morse, Republican. 


Of the 114 above-mentioned Members of the next House, 79 are Democrats and 35 
are Republicans. The Democrats have simply stood by their national platform, 
which declares for majority rule. In Jefferson’s day majority rule prevailed, for the 
people instructed at will by direct vote. The rise of the convention altered the sys¬ 
tem. We are getting back to the people’s rule. 

It is of special note that the above-described membership shows that the issue is not 
sectional nor is there a class conflict. All are against machine rule. 

In most of the districts where the contest was known to be close, both the leading 
candidates pledged for the people’s cause. This was the case in 36 districts. In 45 
districts the ones who refused to pledge were defeated. This factor in the election is of 
far-reaching importance. Nearly all the ones who thus were beaten were Republicans. 
In 6 of the 45 districts it was the Democrat who refused to pledge. 

This year’s campaign is only the real beginning of the national movement for the 
initiative and referendum system. The issue was raised by the questioning of nomi¬ 
nees through the mail by the National Federation for People’s Rule, principally com¬ 
posed of referendum leagues, and officered by leaders in the referendum movement 
and by the heads of the various farmers’ organizations, with the questions indorsed 
by the American Federation of Labor and the labor representation committee of the 
American Federation of Labor. 

The chief source of strength has been the publicity given to the attitude of Con¬ 
gressional candidates, for the issue is such that the voters were drawn to those who 
pledged for it. A report for each district was issued by the National Federation to 
the nominee who pledged and in the report it was freely charged that the opponent 
of the proposed increase in the people’s power was the trusts’ candidate. In only a 
few districts, however, did the issue become a really live one, for in all but a few of 
the States the voters have not become acquainted with the initiative and referendum, 
and none of the large organizations were campaigning for it, while comparatively few 
of the nominees knew much about the national programme for the restoration of the 
people’s rule. In 134 districts a pledged Democratic or Republican nominee was 
defeated, because the issue was not presented in such a way as to cause it to be con¬ 
sidered paramount. 

Two years hence the conditions will be greatly altered for publicity, for the programme 
will probably make it invincible, judging by the unanimous sentiment which now 
exists for it wherever the people know about the direct-vote systeip. In South 
Dakota, for example, where the people are living under the initiative and referendum 
system in State and municipal affairs, all the nominees pledged for it. In Wisconsin, 
of the twenty-four Republican and Democratic nominees, all but four pledged and 
two of these were defeated. In Missouri all of the sixteen Democratic nominees 
pledged and five of the Republicans. Of the eleven Republicans who refused only 
three were elected. 

The announcement that 104 Members of the next National House favored the 
establishment of a system whereby the people can vote direct on national issues caused 
a great deal of comment at the national capital. 

Those who stood with the people and against the trusts were jubilant, while the 
others were bitter. Silence in the public prints, however, is the trusts’ attitude. 

The American Federation of Labor officials were highly pleased, for the pledging of 
candidates for the establishment of the direct-vote system is part of their programme. 



12 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


The questions to candidates were indorsed by the American Federation of Labor. 
This fact has been entirely overlooked in practically all the newspaper comments. 
Organized labor has won a tremendous victory and, best of all, it is not for class 
interests but for all the people. 

The explanation of the victory is that the issue is so broad that candidates dared not 
oppose it, provided an opposition candidate stood ready to debate the proposition. 

This year the issue was new, however, and most of the men who pledged knew little 
about the proposed national system. They could not press the issue. But in 45 dis¬ 
tricts success went to the candidate who pledged, as against one who refused to pledge. 
The names of these successful Congressmen are indicated in the foregoing list oy 
italics. 

Following is a carefully prepared report by Hon. Ernest O. Kooser, Democratic 
Congressional nominee in the 'I'wenty-third Pennsylvania district: 

“Eighteen thousand copies of your report for this district were used. The first 
copies were not mailed until about seven days before the election. The last ones were 
tliose sent into Fayette County and mailed about three days before election. 

* About a month before the election I mailed a circular letter to all the voters in the 
district, stating my position, among other matters, in favor of direct legislation; but, 
owing to the greater interest in other questions, this point did not receive much 
attention. * * * 

“ I consider that the net results of the use of the circulars were beneficial to my 
campaign. If I had it to go through again I should not hesitate to urge the issue with 
all possible vigor. I think any candidate, believing in the system of direct voting on 
legislation, will improve his prospects of election by making it one of the leading 
issues of his campaign, 

“ I can not outline any complete and definite plan as to the future course to be taken 
here to carry on this fight; but we shall continue in the contest until it is won for the 
people of these United States, and the people of Pennsylvania must have some more 
adequate means of expressing their views in the matter of the laws that shall govern 
them.” 

Arthur J. Lacy, esq., of the Eleventh Michigan district, has written to the National 
Federation for People’s Rule: 

“I wish to express to you my gratitude for the very kind service you have rendered 
me in this campaign. I feel as much indebted as I could had I been favored with the 
election. The result is particularly gratifying to me, and far beyond my expectations. 
The vote of the district was 25 per cent short, yet through the aid of my friends and 
what I could do for myself, my opponent’s majority has been cut down about 12,000, 
or nearly 60 per cent.” 

Newspaper Comment, 

INFLUENTIAL PAPERS ASK FOR TERMINATION OF MACHINE RULE. 

The New York Independent, in its issue of November 22, 1906, says: 

“In our opinion the initiative and referendum is the most important ‘next step’ 
in political reform in this country. Its advent ought to do wonders in breaking up 
corrupt political machines and preventing the passage of vicious legislation, and under 
it real leaders of the people will find it easy to arise on live issues.” 

Moody’s Magazine, a Wall street publication, Byron W. Holt, editor, in its Septem¬ 
ber number, says editorially: 

“A movement, and a very big and practical one, is now on foot to reestablish the 
people’s rule—that is, majority rule—through the initiative and referendum, or the 
advisory initiative and referendum. This means a direct-vote system for public 
questions, the vote to be binding, if possible, but simply advisory, where a State or 
other constitution is in the way or where legislators are unwilling to concede the full 
right of the people to make and unmake laws. This movement is proceeding silently, 
but in-esistibly. It is undoubtedly the most profound and far-reaching re-form now 
before the American people. Indirectly, during the next few years, it will probably 
exert a greater influence over investments than will be exerted by any individual or 
score of individuals, no matter how able and popular they may be to-day. It is, 
indeed, probable that individuals will lose their power as politicians and "bosses as 
soon as the people get the reins of government in their hands. This, in fact, is what 
has resulted in South Dakota and Oregon, where the initiative and referendum is in 
operation. In Switzerland, where the referendum system has been in operation for 
many years, individuals are of minor importance in politics; measures and not men 
receive the attention of the voters.” 

The Wall Street Journal of November 23, 1906, sa,ys: “Various remedies have been 
proposed for this evil of half-baked legislation affecting business. When special inter¬ 
ests get the upper hand in legislation, the lobbyist and the nolitical boss are apt to 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


13 


have a hand in it. In order to eliminate this mischievous element, the reference of 
all important acts of legislation to the people for acceptance or rejection has been pro¬ 
posed which has worked well in Switzerland. 

“Another means of protection against legislation which ignores the popular will is 
the initiative by which voters propose the subjects of legislature on which improved 
laws are demanded. ‘The initiative and the referendum,’ says one of its advocates, 
‘would be destructive of bossism and ring rule. They would not abolish representa¬ 
tive government, but would prevent its becoming despotic. They would operate to 
the self-disfranchisement of the unintelligent. They wmiild promote and extend civic 
intelligence by exciting interest in public questions. They would enable thoughtful 
citizens to vote for men whom they regard as good candidates without thereby sup¬ 
porting what they regard as bad politics. They would improve our governments by 
bringing them closer to the people.’ 

“Whether these changes are imminent or not, we are facing radical departures in 
our methods of expressing popular opinion. Nor can business fail to feel the effect.” 

Address to Congressional Nominees. 

Beginning September 13 an address including questions to candidates was mailed 
to Congressional nominees as rapidly as their names and addresses could be secured. 

Toward the close of September a second communication was mailed to those who 
had not replied. 

To each nominee there was mailed a copy of the 64-page campaign book, “The 
People’s Rule in Place of Machine Rule,” being the September Referendum News. 

The address to Congressional nominees was as follows: 

Hon.-, 

Candidate for Congress. 

Dear Sir: The time is at hand when the American people are about to elect legis¬ 
lative agents. You are asking the people of the-Congressional district to com¬ 

mission you as their agent in the National House of Representatives. This entitles 
them to know your attitude on the burning question of the day—the reestablishment 
of the people’s rule in place of the convention system (machine rule). 

Maefiine rule must be terminated .—Every sincere citizen who loves our Republic is 
devoted to the principle that the majority of the voters should be the supreme earthly 
power in the nation. But the will of the majority is not now the sovereign power, 
because the system of government is such that there is no provision whereby the 
voters can secure a direct ballot on public questions, as was the case prior to the in¬ 
stallation of the convention system, 1823 to 1832. To establish an improved form of 
the direct-vote system is the dominant issue, in our opinion. The people’s nile must 
be established. The rule of the few must cease. Autocracy, which crept into the 
country through the debasement of the convention system, must go. To-day, as 
1776, the question of political liberty is the dominant issue. When political liberty 
is established, it will quickly lead to legislative relief. 

We ask ypu, therefore, and shall publish your replies throughout the district: 

Question 1. If the electors will select you to represent them, will you faithfully 
work and vote for the immediate enactment of a statute to establish a system of direct 
voting on public questions through— 

(1) The advisory initiative, to apply to questions of interstate commerce, civil serv¬ 
ice, immigration, trial by jury or any modification of the law of injunction, eight-hour 
day in Government contract work, and the submission of constitutional amendments 
for the initiative and referendum, election of United States Senators by the people, 
and election of fourth-class postmasters by the patrons of each office; and 

(2) The advisory referendum, to apply to laws of Congress and measures passed by 
either House? (Suggestions for said systems are set forth in the accompanying bill.) 

Answer. 

Question 2. Will you obey instructions from your constituents when given by 
referendum vote? 

Answer. 

To each of the foregoing questions we desire a clear-cut yes or no. Your replies, 
together with those of the several candidates for Congress in your district, to each of 
whom this set of questions is being mailed, will be forv^arded to the newspapers through¬ 
out the district, also to the nonpartisan organizations. If you or any other candidate 
refuse to come out for the people squarely, openly, and in writing signed by yourself 
you will be questioned at every meeting, and there will be held, if need be, a series of 
meetings in wUich there will be discussed the need for the election of candidates 
who are pledged to abolish the rule of the few; and voters’ nonpartisan agreement 






14 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


blanks will be circulated. For the first time since the war of the Revolution the 
dominant issue is that of the people’s right to self-government. 

It must be clear that the conditions are such that candidates can no longer evade 
the issue, and they surely will not oppose it. 

Please let us hear from you at your earliest opportunity. A refusal to reply within 
10 days from the receipt of this letter will be a negative to our questions and will be 
BO considered in our report to the newspapers and nonpartisan organizations. 

Respectfully, yours, 

National Federation for People’s Rule, ■ 

Attest; By Geo. H. Shibley, President. 

Ralph Albertson, 

Secretary. 

This is to certify that the foregoing questions have been indorsed by the American 
Federation of Labor and approved by the undersigned. The American Federation 
of Labor campaign has for its purpose immediate relief from wrong and injustice, and 
the establishment of the initiative and referendum principle (the rule of the majority) 
in the political affairs of our country. 

Samuel Gompers, 

James O’Connell, 
Frank Morrison, 

Labor Representation Committee, A. F. of L. 

The number of nominees questioned was 683 and the number who answered favor¬ 
ably was 307, distributed among the parties as follows: Democratic, 354, favorable, 
233; Republican, 296, favorable, 54; Prohibitionist, 15, favorable, 10; Socialist, 18, 
favorable, 10. 

In 34 districts both the leading nominees answered yes. For further data see open¬ 
ing article. (Page 11.) 

In addition to the declarations by the 307 Congressional nominees for the restoration 
of a direct-vote system (majority rule) for the eight national topics, the following state¬ 
ments were made, nearly all of which are broader than the programme declared for: 

SOUTHERN statesmen. 

J. Thomas Heflin, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected). Fifth district, Ala¬ 
bama; 

“Employing the language of Hon. Morris Sheppard, of Texas: ‘I am in favor of 
every reform that will make more certain and sure the rule of the people.’ ” 

Joseph T. Robinson, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected), Sixth district, 
Arkansas: 

‘ ‘ It gives me pleasure to say that I heartily approve of the principle of submitting 
the important questions referred to in your circular to the direct vote of the people, 
and I would obey instructions from my constituents when given by referendum vote, 
provided always the issue has been fairly and fully submitted to them. I believe 
that in this way we would more nearly approach a pure democracy, public intelligence 
would be increased, and the public conscience aroused.” 

Thomas W. Hardwick, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected), Tenth district, 
Georgia; 

“ I am inclined to the opinion that it will be not only right, but thoroughly practical, 
to apply the referendum principle to a few great questions.” 

Hon. II. N. Hackett, of North Carolina. Democrat, elected in place of Repre¬ 
sentative Blackburn, who refused to pledge for the people’s rule; 

“I am unqualifiedly in favor of majority rule in this country, ‘unawed by power 
and unbribed by gain,’ by whatever honest fair means it can be obtained.” 

Edward W. Pou, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected). Fourth district. North 
Carolina: 

“I am heartily in favor of submitting all questions to the people directly wherever 
it is practical to do so. * * * Being a public servant I do not object to stating 
my position with resy^ect to any question which may come before Congress.” 

John N. Small, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected), First district. North 
Carolina: 

“I am against machine rule and believe that the wdll of the majority should be 
honestly ascertained, and that the same should prevail in political parties and upon 
all questions submitted to the people. I am in favor of legalized party primarW. 
As 1 understand the same, 1 am in favor of the initiative and referendum as a means 
of ascertaining the will of the people by a system of direct voting on public questions.” 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


15 


J. M. Richardson, Member of Congress (Democrat), Eighth district, Kentucky; 

“As I have always been in favor of the issue mentioned (majority rule) I have no 
hesitancy in declaring for it now.” 

Hon. I. D. Smith (Prohibitionist), First district, Kentucky: 

“I have been a full-fledged referendum man for twenty years.” 

John Lamb, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected). Third district, Virginia: 

“I am and always have been an earnest advocate of the people’s rights—am an 
original referendum advocate, and believe in the soundness of the fundamental 
principles in your circular.” 

Morris Sheppard, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected). First district, Texas: 

“I am heartily in favor of every reform making more certain'and sure the rule of 
the people.” 

John M. Moore, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected). Eighth district, Texas: 

“I shall stand by my party platform declarations.” 

James L. Slayden, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected). Fourteenth district, 
Texas; 

“ I favor doing everything which it is practicable to do to put and keep the control 
.of government and the direction of legislation in the hands of the people.” 

MARYLAND STATESMEN. 

J. Frederick C. Talbott, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected). Second district, 
Maryland: t 

“ 1 am thoroughly in favor of the people’s rule and have always obeyed instructions 
from my constituents.” 

Dr. Thomas A. Smith, Member of Congress (Democrat), First district, Maryland: 

“1 heartily approve of the principle of direct legislation. The people should be all- 
powerful and he who seeks to represent them should remember whence he derives 
his commission. The evils wdiich afflict the body politic to-day are directly traceable 
to the loose and irresponsible ties which so 'often exist between the people and their 
representatives in the national and state legislatures. It is certain that the voters 
have it in their own hands to restore the close and confidential nature of representation 
which formerly existed and to make their representatives feel that their first allegiance 
is to the people who elected them. As a Democrat, imbued with the doctrine of 
‘ equal rights to all and special privileges to none; ’ as a firm believer in the wisdom 
of popular government, 1 am in thorough sympathy with any movement to check 
and overturn the manifest tendency to autocratic rule by selfish interests at variance 
with the true progress and well-being of the American‘people, and willing to assist 
in accomplishing that end by upholding the rule of the majority.” 

Doctor Smith w'as defeated by the use of money. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATESMEN. 

R. O. Moon, Member of Congress (Republican, elected), of Philadelphia, Pa., 
chairman Committee on Revision of Laws; 

“The principle that the people should rule is fundamental in our Government. We 
have doubtless in practice drifted farther away from it than the founders of the Govern¬ 
ment originally intended. I, as a Representative in Congress, recognize my duty 
to my constituents to represent their constitutionally expressed convictions respecting 
the enactment of new laws or the repeal of old ones. 

“The general principles of the advisory initiative and the advisory referendum 
are certainly steps in the right direction toward giving the people a more direct and 
controlling voice in national legislation. This principle I would advocate and would 
lend my influence and my-vote to reestablish. 

“Whenever the will of my constituents is made known to me through any present 
constitutional means or through any other recognized medium of registering their will 
respecting national legislation, I shall cheerfully obey their instructions.” 

Marlin E. Olmsted, Member of Congress, Eighteenth district, Pennsylvania, 
Republican, who defeated Mr. Lindner, who refused to pledge; 

“ I am in favor of rule by the people and against rule by the few. My people will 
have my voice, vote, and influence for the initiative and referendum whenever they 
desire it. I have no end or aim in Congress except to serve the best interests of my 
constituents, and so long as 1 remain in that body it will afford me pleasure to voice 
their will.” 

George F. Huff, Member of Congress (Republican, elected). Sixth district, Penn¬ 
sylvania; 

“ In all cases where the wishes of my constituents can be ascertained by any reason¬ 
able means, I will respect the same concerning national legislation, and in all other 
matters pertaining to their welfare.” 


16 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND EEFERENDUM. 


Arthur L. Bates, Member of Congress (Republican, elected), Twenty-fifth district, 
Pennsylvania: 

“I have been examining for some time the subject of initiative and referendum 
and I know of no better way for obtaining the will of the people on any specific sub- 
j ect. I therefore favor the plan, as I am always willing to reflect the views of the people 
who elect me whenever expressed, and if the referendum vote can be inaugurated 
I would certainly obey its instructions.” 

Hon. Andrew J. Palm (Democrat), Twenty-fifth district, Pennsylvania: 

“I take pleasure in answering ‘Yes’ to both of your interrogatories. When a mem¬ 
ber of the Pennsylvania legislature, 1900-1904, I introduced a bill providing for the 
initiative and referendum, but you can easily surmise its fate.” 

Hon. Spencer Miller (Democrat), First district, Pennsylyania: 

“I believe thoroughly in the principles of advisory initiative and advisory refer¬ 
endum in legislation. It is my present judgment that there is no subject of legisla¬ 
tion which ought to be reserved from the operation of such principles.” 

Hon. Horace Keesey (Democrat), Twentieth district, Pennsylvania: 

“I am in favor of the people ruling in all things and in submitting questions to the 
people where and when it can be done in an honest, practical, and legal way.” 

Hon. Ernest O. Kooser (Democrat), Twenty-third district, Pennsylvania: 

“In my campaign as a fusion candidate of the Democratic and Lincoln parties 
in this Twenty-third Congressional district of Pennsylvania, I have endeavored to 
make direct legislation the principal issue as a cure for the misrule of lobbies and 
rings that have disgraced this State.” ^ 

NEW ENGLAND STATESMEN. 

Edwin C. Burleigh, Member of Congress, (Republican, elected). Third district, Maine: 

“I favor any principle—I care not what it may be called—that will enlarge the 
power of the people on all questions, State and national, that affect the well-being 
of the citizens.” 

Hon. Andrew J. Peters (Democrat, elected). Eleventh district, Massachusetts: 

“In reply to your letter would say that I have served one year in the Massachusetts 
house and two years in the Massachusetts senate, and that during my service I have 
been recorded at all times on roll calls in favor of the initiative and referendum, the 
public-opinion bill, and the popular ciectionof United States Senators. My opponent 
in the Eleventh Congressional district is recorded in the Massachusetts senate in oppo¬ 
sition to these measures.” 

(This opponent of self-government for the people Avas defeated by the people.) 

Ex-Govemor Lucius F. C. Garvin (Democrat), Second district, Rhode Island: 

“If elected I Avill introduce an amendment to the Federal Constitution providing 
that future specific amendments to that instrument may be proposed by petitions 
signed by not exceeding 1,000,000 voters, every such proposition to be submitted to 
the people for acceptance or rejection at the Congressional election next succeeding 
the filing of the petitions.” 

Daniel L. D. Granger, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected), Rhode Island: 

“I favor more power in the people.” 

lion. George M. Wallace (Democrat), Second district, Connecticut: 

“The machines and bosses who make a specialty of aiding corporations by beggaring 
their constituents should be put out of business by the direct primary, the recall, 
the initiative and referendum.” 

Elisha Dyer (Republican), mayor of Providence, R. I.: 

“I believe in the people’s rule every time in place of machine rule whenever and 
wherever the same can be brought into effectual operation^” 

NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY STATESMEN. 

Robert Baker, ex-Member of Congress (Democrat), Sixth district. New York: 

“No musty precedent will swerve me from doing all I can to purify our politics, 
to devote my talents to securing those measures—direct primary nominations, the 
initiative and referendum; the recall; a corrupt law practice; direct election of United 
States Senators by popular vote—so essential t© restore government by the people. It 
is only through the medium of such laws that the people can hope 1 k) obtain economic 
reforms—a parcels-post system; postal savings })ank; municipal ownership of public 
utilities; the withdrawal of special privileges from the trusts and their consequent 
overthrow. 

“I will obey instructions even though I may not agree with them.” (This is in 
line with the view that the Representative is an agent and not a ruler.) 


^ NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


17 


Hon. William H. Jackson (Democrat), Thirteenth district, New York: 

“ I heartily approve your plan for a direct vote on national issues.” 

Hon. Walter Scott (Democrat), Twenty-fourth district, New York: 

“I am on record publicly and privately for the past ten years as firmly advocating 
the initiative and referendum.” 

Dr. Frank Beebe (Democrat), Twenty-fifth district. New York: 

“I am heartily in favor of majority rule and on that understanding accepted the 
nomination and think it entirely superfluous to have been the recipient of your 
inquiry.” 

Hon. John W. Williams (Democrat), Thirty-sixth district. New York: 

“I wish you success in your good work and heartily indorse your cause.” 

Ira W. Wood, Member of Congress (Republican, elected), Fourth district. New 
Jersey: 

“I am in favor of giving the people in every practicable way the opportunity to 
express themselves on all public questions, and to influence legislation to that end.” 

Hon. C. H. Kraemer (Democrat), Seventh district. New Jersey: 

“I am thoroughly in sympathy with the advisory initiative and the advisory 
referendum, and always ready and willing to abide by the instructions from my 
constituents, when given by referendum vote.” 

Hon. Legage Pratt (Democrat, elected). Eighth district. New Jersey: 

“ I believe in guarded representative government; and since the national Democratic 
platform of 1904 declared for the principle of the initiative and referendum, and since 
said platform is indorsed by the platform upon which I stand in my canvass for Con¬ 
gress from the Eighth New Jersey district, I would, if elected, vote for and otherwise 
support the statute as proposed by your federation, if it should get before the House 
with the approval of the Judiciary Committee. 

“So great an educator and historian as Woodrow Wilson, in The State, page 490, 
states but two objections to the referendum: First, that it assumes a discriminating 
judgment and a fullness of information on the part of the people touching questions 
of public policy which they do not often possess; second, it lowers the sense of responsi¬ 
bility on the part of the legislators. 

“Your proposed statute provides admirably, in my view, for the education of the 
people on the questions to be submitted to them; and since in practice the system 
IS known to automatically disfranchise the ignorant, his first objection does not have 
great weight with me. In my humble opinion, his second objection is not likely to 
prove valid. I should think the reverse effect might be reasonably expected, for the 
same reason that the judge of a lower court has a pride in rendering decisions which 
will be confirmed by the higher courts. Therefore, I reason that any legislative 
body would have a pride in enacting legislation which would receive the approval 
of the people. 

“With best wishes for a guarded system of legislation, I remain, yours very truly.” 

CENTRAL STATESMEN. 

Charles E. Townsend, Member of Congress (Republican, elected), Second district, 
Michigan: * 

“I am heartily in favor of submitting questions, and especially the ones mentioned, 
to the people, and will cheerfully support any measure which convinces me as best 
able to carry out the true spirit of democracy.” 

H. T. Rainey, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected). Twentieth district, Illinois: 

“Am most heartily in favor of the initiative and referendum and the advisory 
initiative and advisory referendum for national issues.” ^ ^ 

Hon. M. D. Foster (Democrat, elected). Twenty-third district, Illinois: 

“I certainly stand for the people’s rule and am talking it at every meeting I hold 
in the district.” 

Hon. H. N. Wheeler (Democrat, elected). Fifteenth district, Illinois: 

“I have been in favor of the initiative and referendum for years; ever since it was 
first brought to my attention. It seems to me that I could occupy no other position 
and be a Democrat. I earnestly hope that this grand reform will come, and come 
soon, and I shall do everything in my power to bring it about, either as editor or as 
Congressman, should I be elected to that position.” 

Herbert J. Friedman (Democrat), Second district, Illinois: 

“I have always taken the position that a vote should count for measures as well as 
for men, and that a public opinion law, such as we have in our State, would be to the 
great advantage of the country on questions of national issue.” 

Hon. J. J. Mclnerney (Democrat), Twenty-second district, Illinois: 

“I have long been in favor of the initiative and referendum as advocated by your 
association and will so continue.” 


S. Doc. 516, 60-1-2 



18 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


George B. Murray (Prohibitionist), Twenty-third district, Illinois; 

“I am making the reestablishment of the people’s rule a special point in my cam¬ 
paign.” 

David A. De Armond, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected). Sixth district, 
Missouri: 

“I am for any practical means of increasing directly the power of the people in 
governmental affaits. I had postmaster primaries after Cleveland’s election in 1892, 
and so have ‘done it.’ ” 

D. W. Shackleford, Member of Congress (Democrat, elected). Eighth district, Missouri: 

“I am unqualifiedly in favor of the initiative and referendum in both State and 
Federal government. I believe th,e people may always be trusted.” 

Hon. D. W. Hamilton, of Iowa (Democrat), elected in place of Representative 
Lacey, who refused to pledge; 

“In my campaign I am especially advocating the trial by jury of injunction suits, 
and the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the people. I especially 
favor the election of postmasters by the patrons of each office. I look upon the present 
system as an aid to machine politics. I am heartily in favor of a representative obey¬ 
ing the instructions of his constituents, and I believe he should be a servant of the 
people and endeavor to carry out the desires of his constituency. The nearer we get 
to the people the less fraud and corruption will exist. ” 

A. F. Dawson, Member of Congress (Republican, elected). Second district, Iowa: 

“I am heartily in favor of the people’s rule in place of ‘machine’ rule, and shall 
earnestly favor all practical legislation to that end. ’ ’ 

George S. Tracy (Democrat), First district, loAva: 

“I believe that the initiative and referendum will bring all questions nearer to the 
people and I believe that the people are entitled to pass upon the affairs which con¬ 
cern them and their interest. I have adopted this view whenever I had an oppor¬ 
tunity to do so in my official career in this city and county.” 

Hon. George W. Ball (Democrat), Second district, Iowa: 

“As the Constitution guarantees its people the right to petition, and the right of 
the majority to rule is democratic, I answer the questions in the affirmative.” 

Hon. J. E. Estes (Democrat), Eighth district, Iowa: 

“I beg to say that in nearly every speech of this campaign I have already urged 
these measures (initiative and referendum) as a relief to the people of the Eighth Iowa 
district, from the present machine rule politics. My indorsement is not merely 
nominal—it is advocacy.” 

Hon. William S. Elder (Democrat), at large. South Dakota: 

“I am in favor of the system of direct voting on public questions, including some 
form of advisory initiative and advisory referendum, and if elected will work for the 
enactment of such legislation, and will certainly abide by the Avishes of my constituents 
when given by referendum vote. We have the initiati\m and referendum in South 
Dakota, and it has been made a part of our platform, although we have never invoked 
either, yet, as a member of the city council of this city, I have had occasion to observe 
the good effect of the law as a club to compel decent legislation.” 

Hon. A. G. Burr (Democrat), at large. North Dakota: 

“Not only am I in sympathy with this movement for the adoption of the initiative 
and referendum principle in State and nation, but am advocating the same on the 
stump. I believe thoroughly in the rule of the people with no restrictions nor res¬ 
ervations. ’ ’ 

Henry Allen Cooper, M. C. (Republican, elected). First district, Wisconsin: 

“ I am a believer in the initiative and referendum principle and heartily 
favor the movement to secure to the people a more immediate and direct control 
over legislation. I shall be glad to give my influence and vote to help secure such 
cdntrol for them.” 

Charles H. Weisse, M. C. (Democrat, elected). Sixth district, Wisconsin; 

“At all times that I have an opportunity I shall advocate direct legislation. It 
is unnecessary to say ‘Avherever it is practical,’ because it is practical everyAAffiere. 
It is as practicable applied to the expenditure of the people’s money as it is in the 
collecting of taxes. I hope the day will come that we aauII be able to carry out this 
fight, as we will then be in a position to stop the grafting administrations and the 
enormous appropriations for creating offices and filling them with men who only 
draAV salaries for political machines, and work for the furthering of their own and the 
machine’s interest. Until direct legislation is accomplished I can see no relief from 
the extravagant and wasteful use of the people’s hard-earned money.” • 

J. G. Donnelly (Democrat), Fifth district, Wisconsin; 

“I have long been a believer in the initiative and referendum principle in national 
affairs, and whether elected to Congress or not, 1 pledge myself to do everything in 
my power for the promotion of that principle.”- 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND EEFERENDUM. 


19 


,T. H. Davidson, M. C. (Ilep)ublican, elected), Eighth district, Wisconsin: 

“I have always believed in keeping the Government close to tl^e people, and 
therefore believe the people should have full opportunity to express their wish on 
public questions, and have legislation enacted in accordance therewith.” 

WESTERN STATESMEN. 

E. H. Hinshaw, M. C. (Republican), of Nebraska, who defeated J. J. Thomas, 
who refused to pledge; 

“I certainly shall be glad to cooperate in every possible way for the advancement 
of the initiative and referendum principle in national affairs. The nearer Govern¬ 
ment comes to the individual voter, the more certain are the people to have their 
wishes crystallized in the law.” 

Hon. Mason S. Peters (Democrat), Second district, Kansas; 

“1 have been working along the lines suggested by your questions for many years.” 

Hon. Francis M. Brady (Democrat), Third district, Kansas; 

“I was pleased to receive this morning your circular containing the two ques¬ 
tions; one in reference to the advisory referendum and advisory initiative, etc., 
and I hasten to reply. I am pleased to be able to answer both of those questions 
in the affirmative. I inclose a circular which contains a statement of the questions 
for which I stand in this campaign in this district. You will find that statements 
No. 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, and 16 are all in line with the questions which you ask, and I 
have been using these points in my campaign ever since the 1st of May and have 
advocated those questions since 1896.” 

Hon. H. W. Brunk (Democrat), Third district, California; 

“I can see in the initiative and referendum the only possible solution of our pres¬ 
ent political evils. ’ ’ 


Unfavorable and Partially Unfavorable Replies. 

Hon. Walter I. Smith, M. C. (Republican, elected), Ninth district, Iowa: 

“I believe in a republican as distinguished from a democratic form of govern- 
ment. 

“I have to advise you that I can not support your policy as indicated in your 
circular of September 13.” 

Reply .—There is no distinction between a republican and democratic form of 
government. The terms are synonymous. They simply mean that the sovereign 
power is in the people. For proof see recent decision of the California supreme 
court, declaring that the initiative system is a republican form of government; also 
see September Referendum News, chapter 62. Previous to the convention system 
the people instructed at will by direct vote. When this system was dropped the 
Government became unrepublican and undemocratic, for machine rule prevailed— 
the voters retained no power to instruct during the machine’s term of office and 
there existed no vote power and no power of direct legislation. 

W. Bourke Cochran, M. C. (Democrat, elected). Twelfth district. New York:* 

“Believing as I do that the system of government embodied in the Constitution 
of the United States is the very best ever devised by human wisdom, and that gov¬ 
ernment being representative in character, my answer to both your questions must 
be‘No.’ 

“If elected, I shall seek diligently to ascertain the views of my constituents on 
every question that may come before Congress, but after weighing them carefully 
and respectfully, in casting a vote I shall be guided solely by my own conscience. 

“On these conditions I base my candidacy; on no others would I accept an elec¬ 
tion.” 

Reply .—See preceding section. 

J. C. Needham, M. C. (Republican, elected). Sixth district, California: 

“I am the regular nominee of the Republican party for Congress in the Sixth dis¬ 
trict of California, and under the laws of the State of California (sec. 55a Penal Code 
Cal. approved March 21, 1905) it is an offense for a candidate for a legislative posi¬ 
tion to answer questions such as you propound. I would be entirely willing to make 
answers to the questions if I was not prohibited from doing so by the laws of this 

State.” . . . . , , . 

Reply.—rp\\Q law against questioning candidates is unconstitutional, being an 
unrepublican form of government. It is machine rule of the most autocratic type. 

Edgar D. Crumpacker, M. C. (Republican, elected), Tenth district, Indiana; 

“The Federal Constitution vests all legislative powers exclusively in the Con¬ 
gress. The policy contained in your first proposition involves a radical change of 
our system of government.” 

Reply.—See next article. 


20 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


Representative Government or Machine Rule? 

Right to Instruct an Essential Element in Representative Government—Federal Consti¬ 
tution Recognizes this Right. 

Before answering in detail the statement in the preceding paragraph by Hon. 
E. D. Crumpacker it will be well to outline the general topic. 

In this country the question at issue is, “Shall there be a restoration of represent¬ 
ative government?” Machine rule exists, as every one knows. Machine rule is 
not representative government. 

Representative government is that system in which the interests of the voters 
are represented. In order that the voters’ interests may be rey)resented, they must 
possess the power to instruct their representatives, or possess the power to veto their 
acts and exercise the power of direct legislation. 

The voters possessed the power to instruct in the days of Washington, Jefferson, 
Madison, and Monroe. They lost this power when the convention system arose 
and -was debased to machine rule. Instructions were given by direct vote at town 
meetings in rural New England and elsewhere through mass meetings. Further¬ 
more, the representatives in the legislature and in the National Bouse were pledged 
by districts and not by machine-rule State conventions and national conventions. 

To reestablish a system whereby the voters can instruct by direct ballot will restore 
representative government. 

Mr. Crumpacker says; “The Federal Constitution vests all legislative powers 
exclusively in the Congress. The policy contained in your first proposition involves 
a raincal change of our system of government.” 

In answer to the foregoing the writer desires to say that in his opinion the state¬ 
ment in the first sentence is incorrect, but that the second one is correct. Our aim 
is to terminate machine rule, a system which came into existence about seventy- 
five years ago. Mr. Crumpacker has overlooked the fact that machine rule exists. 

Next as to Mr. Crumpacker’s statement that the “Federal Constitution vests all 
power exclusively in the Congress.” This is incorrect, as is demonstrated by the 
Constitution itself, which says; 

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.” (Art. I, 
sec. 1.) And 

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed 
to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Ninth amendment.) 

The people retained the right to instruct, and they exercised it without opj)osi- 
tion, except from the Federalists, who were deposed from office and the party died. 
Later came machine rule. 

To restore a system whereby the voters can instruct by direct ballot will restore 
representative government—the system that existed in the days of Washington, 
Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. The Federalist party temporarily refused to obey 
instructions and thereby change the system of government. The people regained 
their lost power under Jefferson’s leadership. To-day, one hundred and six years 
since the people’s victory over the Federalists, the issue is again the people’s rule 
in place of autocracy. 


[Fpom Arena, Boston, Mass., January, 1908.] 

Justice Brewer on the Initiative and Referendum as a Safeguard against 

Despotism and Mob Rule. 

No more important utterance has been delivered in the United States in recent 
months than that made by .Justice David Brewer of the United States Supreme Court, 
when, in his address on “Public Service in Relation to Public Opinion,” delivered 
on November 20 in New York City, as reported by the Washington Herald, he said: 

“ Despotism and a mob are the two extremes of government. In the one the people 
have nothing to say, and in the other they have unrestrained voices. True democracy 
occupies the middle ground. 

“I'he more constant and universal the voice of the people, the nearer the approach 
to an ideal government. Initiative and referendum make public opinion the quality 
controlling. ^ The more promptly and more fully public officers carry into effect such 
public opinion the more truly is government of and by the people realized.” 
(Washington Herald, November 21, 1907.) 

Justice Brewer’s observations on this point of course are not new, but the value of 
his views lies in the fact that he is considered by general consent, we believe, the 
ablest constitutional jurist on the Supreme Bench. That this great jurist recognizes 
that the safe and sure preventive of the great dangers that threaten republican gov- 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


21 


eminent—that, is, of despotism on the one hand and mob rule on the other—is to be 
found in the adoption by the people of direct legislation, is a matter of first importance 
and is precisely the position long taken by The Arena. 

[From letter to George H. Shibley, June 17, 1907.] 

Senator Robert M. La Toilette says: 

“ In my judgment the public interest would be promoted if a majority of the voters 
possessed the option of directing by ballot the action of their representatives on any 
important issue under proper regulation, insuring full discussion and mature consider¬ 
ation upon such issues by the voters prior to balloting thereon.” 

[Continuation of Referendum News, November, 1906.] 

Record Breaking Speed for Vital Reforms. 

Direct Voting for Public Questions Quickly Wins Wherever Properly Presented. 

There is an order of time in social evolution. To-day one of the changes in this 
country is the termination of machine rule. The change is coming and coming 
rapidly, and in all parts of the country, therefore it is the refomi most easily accom¬ 
plished. Here is the record for Maine, as published in the Waterville (Me.) Mail: 

“Two years ago, very few people in Maine had any knowledge of the initiative and 
referendum, so called. To-day there is a widespread demand that the next lo*gisla- 
ture shall grant permission to the electors of the State to decide by their ballots whether 
the principles of direct legislation, as expressed in the initiative and referendum, shall 
become a part of our law-making system. 

“Two years ago not a newspaper in Maine had given any attention to the initiative 
and referendum. To-day the principles of direct legislation are indorsed by the 
press of the State practically unanimously. 

“Two years ago the initiative and referendum formed no part of any State political 
platform. This year a ‘referendum plank’ was inserted by the Democrats, by the 
Republicans, and the Prohibitionists in their State conventions. Labor, organized 
and unorganized, stands united in favor of this one thing. The granges throughout 
the State are firm in their demands that the next legislature shall, by a two-thirds 
vote, allow the people of Maine to decide whether the initiative and referendum shall 
be made a part of the State constitution. 

“Two years ago not a member-elect of either the House or the Senate had been 
asked to indicate whether he would oppose or support legislation of that nature. This 
year, candidates have been interviewed and questioned often and not one of them has 
deemed it prudent to express himself adversely to the referendum, but many of the 
legislators-elect are pledged to support the bill which will be introduced next January, 
similar to Senate Document No. 24, offered by Senator Clark, of Bar Harbor, two 
years ago. ” 

Great Value of Advisory Initiative, 

STRiKiifG Examples at Detroit, Mich., Grand Rapids, Mich., and Elsewhere. 

Illustrations of the great value of the advisory initiative are more and more frequent. 
At Detroit, Mich., November 6, 1905, by means of an advisory referendum vote the 
people turned down a proposition of the Detroit United Railway for an extension of its 
franchise. The vote against it was 2 to 1. Says the Civic News of Detroit and Grand 
Rapids: 

“It was certainly worth while to see a great body of electors on the broadest demo¬ 
cratic basis reject with absolute decisiveness such a franchise as the one for which 
Mayor Codd and the Detroit United Railway joined hands. The temptation to accept 
the franchise with its many promised advantages, strengthened by the actual trial of 
the reduced rates, could not have been resisted by a town asleep. In the face of a 
powerful combination of forces, business and political, backed by an apparently 
unlimited supply of money, the people voted ‘no,’ and refused the mess of pottage. 
It was the first time that the people of Detroit had a chance to vote on a franchise. 
They did it well. ” 

On the same day at Grand Rapids, Mich., the advisory referendum was used on the 
question of calling upon the legislature to amend the city charter by providing for 
nonpartisan municipal elections. “There had been comparatively little discussion 
of this amendment in the public press,” says the Civic News, “‘and comparatively 
little work done for or against it among the people. When the votes were counted, 
however, it was shown that 12,215 Grand Rapids electors had exprossed themselves on 


22 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND EEFERENDUM. 


this measure, and of these 8,865, or 72^ per cent had voted ‘yes.’ There was a majority 
for the measure in every precinct in the city.” 

On the Grand Rapids referendum ballot was another question, placed there by 
means of the optional referendum. An ordinance on Sunday closing had been passed 
by the city council which aimed to prevent Sunday theater going. A petition was 
circulated that the question be decided by a direct vote of the sovereign power. It 
was charged by some that the ordinance was an attack on personal liberty, for its 
provisions seemed so broad as to prohibit all kinds of Sunday amusements at the parks, 
and baseball. Such is the statement of the Civic News of Grand Rapids and Detroit, 
and it adds: “The contest excited great interest, and was the occasion of an active 
campaign, the result being that the vote on the theater ordinance was heavier than 
the vote for governor. The vote for governor was 12,944, while the vote on the theater 
ordinance was 13,176, of which 6,895 opposed it and 6,281 favored the ordinance. ” 

This people’s veto of the city council’s ordinance simply shows that the proposed 
law had certain features that must be eliminated, and the discussion has shown what 
they are. Says the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Herald: 

“The fact that the referendum can be called into play when important qqestions 
of principle or of public interest are involved is a wholesome check on the council and 
a safeguard for the public welfare.” 

I^ast spring at Grand Rapids three questions were voted upon under the advisory 
initiative. One provided for the advisory initiative upon ordinances, one for the 
recall of elective officers, and one for the recall of appointive officers. 

The vote on the proposition to apply the advisory initiative to ordinances was 
6,196 in the affinnative and 1,736 in the negative—nearly 4 to 1 in the affirmative. 

The vote on the proposal to establish the recall for appointive officers was 6,682 in 
the athrmative and 1,805 in the negative. 

The vote on the amendment for the recall of elective officers was 7,142 and 1,970 
in the negative. 

The result of the advisory vote was a request to the legislature to amend the city 
charter and it will have a very strong effect. If the advisory voting system did not 
exist in Grand Rapids the people'would be almost helpless, for machine politics are 
strong except when there is a flank attack. As the result of the advisory vote the 
desired reforms are sure to succeed, if not this winter, then later. 

The advisory vote system is easy to establish and its operation educates the public 
as to the value of the initiative and referendum and leads to the adoption of the sys¬ 
tem, at the same time giving an effective means for voicing the people’s will upon 
live public questions. In the words of the New York Independent in its November 
22 issue: “The advisory system is naturally much easier to secure than a constitutional 
amendment, but it ultimately leads to constitutional changes, which is the main 
thing. ” 

Considered nationally, the ad-vdsory vote system is practically the only way to 
reestablish direct voting on national issues, for the system can be established by 
majority vote in both Houses and signature of the bill by the President; whereas a 
constitutional amendment can not be secured under the existing system of machine rule. 

In starting a State movement the advisory initiative has many advantages, as is 
pointed out in the June Referendum News, 1906, pages 5-9. 

Additional illustrations of the value of the advisory referendum in cities is the his¬ 
tory of Buffalo, N. Y., and Chicago, Ill, The Buffalo system was established by an 
ordinance of the city council which has been upheld by the court. The case is 
reported in the January Referendum News, 1906, page 12; also in Law Notes, North- 
port, N. Y., December, 1905. 


Appendix IV. 

[From the Referendum News, September, 1900.] 

Chapter 7.— OTHER PRESENT-DAY PUBLIC MEN WHO BELIEVE IN 
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 

Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and Mayors in Both Parties. 

Mayor Tom L. Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio, 1906: 

“1 am always heartily in favor of any movement tending to give the people’s will 
expression on public questions and to secure the enactment of legislation in accord 
therewith.” 



NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


23 


Representative Charles H. Burke, South Dakota, 1906: 

“ I am in favor of extending to the people the greatest possible latitude in expressing 
their wishes in matters of legislation. I certainly am in favor of extending to the fullest 
extent the power of the people.” 

Representative Eben W. Martin, South Dakota, 1906: 

“ I ani in sympathy with the movement to extend the general participation of 
citizens in the management of their government.” 

Mayor Harry L. Devereux, Springfield, Ill., 1906: 

“I heartily indorse the cause.” 

Representative Charles H. Weisse, Wisconsin, 1906; 

“At all times that I have an opportunity I shall advocate direct legislation. It is 
unnecessary to say ‘wherever it is practical,’ because it is practical everywhere. 
It is as practicable applied to the expenditure of the people’s money as it is in the 
collecting of taxes. I hope the day will come that we will be able to carry out this 
fight, as we will then be in a position to stop the grafting administrations and the 
enormous appropriations for creating offices and filling them with men who only draw 
salaries for political machines, and work for the furthering of their own and the 
machine’s interest. Until direct legislation is accomplished I can see no relief from 
the extravagant and wasteful use of the people’s hard-earned money.” 

Representative John Lamb, Virginia, 1904: 

“I am and always have been an earnest advocate of the people’s rights—am an 
original referendum advocate, and believe in the soundness of the fundamental 
principles in your circular.” 

Representative Daniel L. D. Granger, Rhode Island, 1904: 

“I favor more power in the people.” 

Senator W. E. Mason, Illinois, 1902: 

“I have been asked as to the initiative and referendum. I am in favor of it so far 
as I have been able to study the question with my limited time. I believe that in the 
Republic of Switzerland, from the best information that I have been able to get, it 
is a decided success, and one of the strongest reasons I favor it is because I believe 
that we are p’adually approaching the time when the fewer laws we have the better 
we will be on.” 

Senator T. Al! Patterson, Colorado, 1906: 

“The cause you serve is a good one and the public mind is trending rapidly 
toward it.” 

Senator Cullom wrote to the Referendum League of Illinois during 1902, saying: 

“I note the purposes of your league, and think very well of its proposed work. If by 
such action corrupt legislation in our State can be prevented, it will be a great thing, 
as one would certainly think from all accounts given out that our State legislatures are 
becoming very unfit and less controlled by the voice of the people.” 

The same year Senator Hopkins, of Illinois, said: 

“I favor any principle—I care not what it may be called—that will enlarge the 
power of the people on all questions. State and national, that affect the well-being 
of the citizens.” 

Representative Robert Baker, of New York, 1904: 

“No relief can come to the people from this condition of affairs until the people 
themselves shall have direct control over the legislation affecting these special- 
privilege corporations. That relation and that control can be obtained through 
what is known as the ‘direct legislation’ system by the institution of the ‘initiative 
and referendum.’ ” 

Representative E. C. Burleigh, Maine, 1906: 

“lam in favor of the initiative and referendum in popular government and am run¬ 
ning upon a platform tlT,^t specifically indorses it.” 

Ex-Postmaster-General John Wanamaker, Philadelphia: 

“I heartily approve of the idea of giving the people a veto on corrupt legislation. 
The movement to secure for the people a more direct and immediate control over 
legislation shall have my support. I trust sueh a movement will receive the thoughtful 
attention of all who would improve our political and industrial conditions. I am 
willing to trust public questions to the intelligence and conscience of the people.” 

Mayor Jones, of Toledo, now deceased, said: 

“The necessary steps toward liberty are nonpartisan politics and the use of the 
referendum and initiative, and the people are ready to walk that way.” 

Governor Joseph A. Folk, of Missouri, 1906 (interviewed by St. Louis Star-Chronicle): 

“In your opinion, Governor, what is the remedy for needless legislation and ‘sand¬ 
bagging’ measures?” 

“ It is the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. If we are to have a government 
of the people by the people, the nearer it is brought to the people the better.” 


24 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


Hon. Louis Emery, jr., Pennsylvania, 1906: 

“The closer we get to the people in matters of legislation, the more securely do we 
safeguard the State against abuses and the more nearly do we approximate to an ideal 
republic.” 

Hon. Marmaduke H. Dent, West Virginia: 

“I believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” 

Hon. J. J. Mclnerney, Illinois: 

“I have long been in favor of the initiative and referendum as advocated by your 
association and will so continue.” 

Representative Morris Sheppard, Texas: 

“Heartily in favor of every reform maki-ng more certain and sure the rule of the 
people.” 

Hon. Joseph G. Donnelly, Wisconsin: 

“I have long been a believer in the initiative and referendum principle in national 
affairs.” 

Chapter 19.—REFERENDUM IN ACTION. 

Splendid Results Attained. 

The June election in Oregon was a complete triumph for the initiative and referendum. 
The constitution of the State was reconstructed and important laws enacted, all in 
the interest of the people. It was the completion of a peaceful revolution against 
machine rule and private monopoly. The last vestige of autocracy is wiped out. 
The Associated Press suppressed all the favorable news concerning the referendum 
voting, thereby concealing for a time from the people in other States the fact that a 
system of government exists whereby the monopolists are politically powerless. The 
papers outside the State were compelled to wait for the referendum news until the 
arrival of the Oregon papers or the news bulletin of the People’s Sovereignty League. 

Here is what the voters of Oregon have accomplished since they shook off machine 
rule by establishing in themselves a veto power through the optional referendum and 
a power to initiate measures by petition. 

The establishment of the system was completed early in 1904, petitions were imme¬ 
diately circulated by the people, one for a direct-nominations system and the other 
for local option on the liquor-license question. At the referendum election both 
measures were adopted. 

The next election was held in June, for which ten initiative petitions were circu¬ 
lated and sufficient signatures secured for their submission. Five of these were pro¬ 
posed by the People’s Power League, and are as follows: 

MACHINE RULE OUSTED. 

A constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum for ordinances in 
cities, towns, and counties, and the referendum for single items in appropriation bills; 

A constitutional amendment giving cities and towns exclusive power to enact and 
amend their own charters, subject to the constitution and criminal laws; 

A constitutional amendment permitting the State to control at all times the cost of 
State printing; 

A constitutional amendment giving one legislative assembly power to propose con¬ 
stitutional amendments, and requiring the people’s approval before a constitutional 
convention can be called; and 

A law prohibiting free passes and discriminations by public-service corporations. 

All of these proposals were adopted by the people by large majorities. Thus the 
last vestige of machine rule in the government is wiped out in Oregon. Each com¬ 
munity can do as it likes, and the will of the majority will prevail. In a short time 
the cities and towns can own and operate the municipal monopolies, and in the mean¬ 
time all the monopolies except the interstate ones must cease their discriminations. 
The graft in the State printing can be gotten at by statute law, and the entire system 
of government is under the voter’s control. 

This was the work of the People’s Power League, assisted by the granges, labor 
unions, and other reform organizations. 

TAXATION OF MONOPOLY CORPORATIONS. 

Another powerful organization which took the lead was the State Grange. It cir¬ 
culated petitions for two bills for thd taxation of monopoly corporations. One bill 
was for an annual license tax of 3 per cent on the gross earnings of sleeping-car 
companies, refrigerator-car companies, oil companies, and express companies; and 
the other called for an annual license tax of 2 per cent on the gross earnings of tele¬ 
graph and telephone companies. Both of these bills were accepted by the voters by 
overwhelming majorities, as were the measures proposed by the People’s Power League. 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


25 


' EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN. 

The woman[s suffrage cause was presented. The State organization, backed by the 
national association, proposed a constitutional amendment for the enfranchisement of 
women. A vigorous campaign was conducted and a large amount of educational work 
was accomplished, but the measure did not succeed. Another campaign is already 
under way and will be pushed until the people vote again, two years hence. 

Two years ago the temperance people initiated a stringent local-option bill that 
-was adopted. This year the liquor-dealers’ association secured the submission of an 
initiative bill proposing radical amendments, but only to be defeated. 

A toll-road company endeavored to sell its property to the State and failed. It 
secured the circulation of an initiative bill, which the voters rejected. 

voters’ veto. 

The foregoing measures were initiated by petition. One measure which the last legis¬ 
lature passed was ordered to a referendum vote by petition. It was an appropriation 
bill containing an unusually large sum for the normal schools. The filing of the refer¬ 
endum petition held up the entire bill. In the referendum vote the people accepted 
the bill, but at the same time adopted a constitutional amendment authorizing them¬ 
selves to file a referendum petition against any part of an appropriation bill. 

people’s rule a success. 

Reviewing the entire eleven measures, the conclusion which any close observer must 
reach is that the voters discriminated carefully, for they accepted some of the proposals 
and rejected others. 

Another important fact is that there was no corruption in the election, because the 
monopoly corporations knew that the popular will was against them and that it was 
too strong to be overthrown. “What’s the use, ” said a leading attorney for the cor¬ 
porations when asked why the monopolists didn’t fight at the election. 

A third item is that the ignorant and careless were automatically disfranchised. 
The vote for important measures was 15 to 20 per cent less than the vote for governor. 

Even with the improved character of the Oregon legislature, due to the final power 
in the voters, it still is favorable to the monopolists. It refused to lay a 1 per cent 
tax on the gross earnings of certain monopoly corporations. 

But when the legislature adjourned the State Grange took the rejected bills, crossed 
out the 1 per cent rate of taxation, and inserted a 3 per cent rate in one bill and 2 per 
cent in another, attached initiative petitions, printed them, and circulated copies 
for signatures, then filed the petitions with the Secretary of State. 

That is what the people’s rule means! The monopolists and their political machines 
are no longer the rulers. 

It is clear that the people of Oregon can, as to State and municipal affairs, do as they 
please. The Federal Constitution prescribes certain limitations, it is true, but they 
are in line with the customs of a self-governing people. 

objections answered. ' 

During the campaign the newspapers controlled by the monopolists commented in 
an unfriendly way because a considerable number of measures were proposed, con¬ 
cealing the fact that certain of the measures were needed to complete the establish¬ 
ment of the people’s sovereignty; and that others were needed because the railway 
and other monopoly corporations were still controlling, to some extent, the people’s 
representatives. The monopolists failed also to mention that nearly all the measures 
to be voted upon would be published in full, with an argument, and a copy of each 
distributed to nearly every voter. 

After the people’s sovereignty is fully established and has been in operation for a 
few years only a few measures will be referred to a direct vote, for the members of the 
legislature will more fully represent their constituents; and when proportional rep¬ 
resentation is installed scarcely a bill will go to a direct vote. Such is the result in 
Switzerland, where the people’s sovereignty has existed in federal affairs for fifteen 
years, and for a longer time in the cantons. In federal affairs in Switzerland the mere 
starting of an initiative petition brought from the representatives the submission of a 
bill for public ownership of railways. Only three national bills have been submitted 
through the djrect initiative. 

In the canton of Zurich the initiative was established in 1869. Up to 1893, a period 
of twenty-four years, only 21 measures were proposed by the voters. Of these 4 
were adopted by the legislative body and approved by the voters. Two more were 
approved by the legislative body and vetoed by the voters. The remaining 17 were 
disapproved by the legislative body, and in two cases it framed competing measures 


26 


i^ATIOI^AL INITIATIVE ANE REFERENDUM. 


which the voters adopted. Of the remaining 15 bills, the voters adopted 3 a,nd 
rejected 12. In short, of the 21 bills initiated, 5 became law, 2 of the competing 
measures of the legislative body were adopted by the voters, while 14 of the bills did 
not immediately result in a law. The educational effect, however, was very ^eat. 

The Oregon referendum vote is a complete demonstration that the system is prac¬ 
ticable. From now on we should present the initiative and referendum as a demon¬ 
strated success in our own country. 

The Oregon supreme court has held that the initiative and the referendum are not 
opposed to a republican form of government and therefore are constitutional. The 
case is Kadderly et al. against City of Portland, and is published in 74 Pacific Reporter. 
The case was decided in 1903. 

Chapter 20.—THE VOTE IN THE OREGON ELECTION. 

Voters Discriminated Carefully and Exercised Sound Judgment—Ignorant and Careless 

VoTBRS Disfranchised. 

Every magazine and review that is at all worthy of the name has published, or will 
do so soon, a statement of the workings of the new system of government in Oregon. 
Oregon has become the leading social experiment station of the world, for it is the 
only place in the world where the free spirit of a new country, untrammeled by mon- 
archial and other fixed ideas and special-privilege customs, is operating through a 
system of government in which the people have become the ruling power. In other 
words, this is the first example of real majority rule among the more progressive people 
of the world under modern industrial conditions. The people of New Zealand have 
not yet secured the initiative and referendum, and the Swiss civilization is hampered 
by old-country customs and traditions. Naturally all students of social evolution are 
critically scanning the results in Oregon. 

THE REFERENDUH VOTE IN OREGON. 

The following are the majorities in the referendum voting in Oregon, June 4, reported 
by Hon. W. S. U’Ren, secretary People’s Power League, Oregon City, Oreg. 

For equal-suffrage constitutional amendment: Yes, 36,928; no, 46,971. Rejected 
by 10,043; total vote, 83,899. Vote for governor, 96,715. 

For amendment to the local-option law giving Anti-Prohibitionists and Prohibi¬ 
tionists equal privileges: Yes, 35,397; no, 45,144. Rejected by 9,747. Total vote, 
80,541. 

For a law to abolish tolls on the Mount Hood and Barlow road, and providing for its 
ownership by the State: Yes, 31,525; no, 44,525. Rejected by 13,000. Total vote, 
76,050. 

For constitutional amendment providing method of amending constitution and 
applying the referendum to all laws affecting constitutional conventions and amend¬ 
ments: Yes, 47,661; no, 18,751. ^ Approved by 28,910. Total vote, 66,412. 

For constitutional amendment* giving cities and towns exclusive pow^r to enact and 
amend their charters: Yes, 52,567; no, 19,942. Approved by 32,625— 2i to 1. Total 
vote, 72,509. 

For constitutional amendment to allow the State printing, binding, and printer’s 
compensation to be regulated by law at any time: Yes, 63,749; no, 9,571. Approved 
by 54,178—6i to 1. Total vote, 73,320. 

For constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum on local, special, 
and municipal laws and parts of laws: Yes, 47,778; no, 16,755. Approved by 31,043— 
nearly 3 to 1. Total vote, 64,513. 

For a bill for a law prohibiting free passes and discrimination by railroad companies 
and other public-service corporations: Yes, 57,281; no, 16,779. Approved by 40,- 
502—3.4 to 1. Total vote, 74,060. 

For an act requiring sleeping-car companies, refrigerator-car companies, and oil 
companies to pay an annual license upon gross earnings: Yes, 69,536; no, 6,440. 
Approved by 63,195—nearly 11 to 1. Total vote, 76,075. 

For an act requiring express companies, telegraph companies, and telephone com¬ 
panies to pay an annual license upon gross earnings: Yes, 70,872; no, 6,360. Approved 
by 64,512—11 to 1. Total vote, 77,232. 

These figures are a complete demonstration that the people’s rule is a success. The 
voters discriminated, for they accepted some of the measures and rejected others. 

And the voters exercised a sound judgment, for the results are in line with the senti¬ 
ment of the people’s acknowledged leaders, except that woman’s suffrage was defeated. 
But additional education work will.accomplish the desired result. 


national initiative and eeferendum. 


27 


To state it in a different way, the monopolists met their Waterloo. The tremendous 
majority of 11 to 1 against them and for equitable taxation is a sure index of what will 
come when the direct-vote system is established in national affairs. 

The monopolists who have been operating in Oregon are losing their unjust advan¬ 
tage. They must overturn the people’s sovereignty or quit the State. What they are 
attempting is outlined in the following special dispatch: 

A MONOPOLIST TRICK. 

“There is a strong sentiment being worked up in a quiet way,” says the Portland 
(Oreg.) Telegram, “to have the legislature this winter call a constitutional conven¬ 
tion.” The object, it declares, “is to make it more difficult to submit matters to a 
vote of the people by referendum and initiative.” The reason advanced to the people 
why they should be deprived of their sovereignty is the heavy expense to themselves 
whenever they vote. 

Those who are thus solicitous for the people’s interests are the monopolists, doubt¬ 
less. Several of the monopolies in the State were taxed 3 per cent on their gross earn¬ 
ings at the last referendum election, and each city is now clothed with home rule and 
with majority rule. Unless the monopolists can reverse the situation and restore 
machine rule, their special privileges will all be wiped out. 

But there is not the slightest possibility of a reversion to machine rule. The world 
is moving in the opposite direction. There is not a single instance of a people who 
have restored machine rule. 

Chapter 21.—OPINIONS CONCERNING PEOPLE’S RULE IN OREGON. 

Universal Approval Except by Monopolists and Other Special Privilegists—Oregonians 
Highly Pleased—Absence of Radicalism. • 

The Portland Oregonian, the leading daily paper in Oregon and conservatively 
Republican in politics, in an editorial entitled “Vox Populi,” says: 

“The questions balloted upon by direct vote were not party issues. They stood or 
fell upon their merits alone. They were studied without factional prejudice and 
decided, we may fairly suppose, solely with reference to the public good. 

“It is one of the greatest merits of the initiative and referendum that it makes pos¬ 
sible a clear separation between local and national issues. Under the older system, 
which still prevails in most of the States, the people could express their opinion upon 
such a matter as the Barlow toll-road purchase only by their choice of legislators. In 
determining this choice, numerous other questions necessarily played a part. Which 
party the candidate belonged to, how he stood on the local-option question, upon 
woman suffrage, and many other matters, would all unite to confuse the mind of the 
voter, and he could never express himself clearly, directly, and exclusively upon any 
particular point. The method of the initiative and referendum permits each voter 
to express his individual opinion upon every question standing entirely by itself and 
without admixture of personal or partisan bias. 

“It absolutely separates the business department of legislation from the personal and 
partisan side. Suppose, for example, that a certain Republican voter was opposed 
to the Barlow road purchase, while the Republican candidate for the legislature from 
his district was in favor of it. Under the old system he could not vote for his opinion 
upon this matter of pure business without voting against his party. This was a real 
misfortune, and it gi-eatly contributed to dishearten the common man with politics. 
It made politics seem to him a hopelessly complicated game—baffling, ineffectual, 
futile. It was all promise and no performance. Under the Oregon system the voter 
acts directly upon results. The individual citizen feels his manhood as he could not 
under the purely representative. 

“The heavy vote upon the questions submitted to the referendum and the decisive 
majorities by which they were accepted or rejected prove that the Oregon system has 
solved the problem of interesting the voters in the dry details of government. Hith¬ 
erto they have shown little interest in those matters because their opinion was only 
of indirect and doubtful consequence. In this election the vote upon abstract laws 
and matters of pure finance was quite as large and enthusiastic as upon the governor. 
The referendum bills and the amendments were disposed of by majorities ranging 
from 10,000 to 30,000, showing that the people had studied them and definitely mad*; 
up their minds. A small, scattering, indifferent vote might well have discouraged 
the advocates of direct legislation and would have indicated that the task of interesting 
the plain people in governmental details was hopeless. The opposite result is pro¬ 
portionately encouraging. 

“These large majorities also indicate that the people enjoy the genuine article in 
self-government; and their acceptance of the amendment facilitating constitutional 


28 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


changes, the one requiring the referendum in cities, and the most excellent one 
bestowing complete local government upon municipalities seems to show that they 
are determined not to be satisfied with less than the whole. The tendency is well 
marked. 

“In these matters Oregon is a pioneer. Genuine democracy has been more highly 
developed in this State than anywhere else in the country. The results of the last 
election give no ground to fear that the experiment may fail. The more completely 
the voters trust themselves the more worthy they find themselves to be trusted. 
What could be more heartening to those who believe in government of, for, and by the 
people?” 

In an article in the Review of Reviews, entitled “Oregon as a Political Experiment 
Station,” by Dr. Joseph Schafer, the concluding paragraph is as follows: 

“We remark among the Oregon people a genuine joy at the discovery of their polit¬ 
ical capabilities. Representative government is good, but there is no exhiliration, 
but in direct participation in law making the interest is sharpened, the intelligence 
is quickened, and moral susceptibilities are aroused. The Oregon people are con¬ 
vinced that in the double form of government, partly representative and partly direct, 
they have discovered the true solution of the problem of self-government in our 
American States.” 

In an earlier paragraph of the article it is pointed out that the eleven questions pro¬ 
voked a vast deal of discussion, and it is remarked: 

“Indeed, for a number of months past the people of Oregon have all been more or 
less actively engaged in the business of legislation. The educational benefits incident' 
to the system are bound to be very important. With a change of the initiative law 
perfecting the method of distributing copies of proposed measures to the voters, there 
IS no reason why every farmers’ club, labor union, and lyceum in the State can not 
become in effect a miniature legislative assembly. In this way the interests of all 
sections and all classes of the people are bound to receive attention; measures will be 
produced for submission to the local representatives and others to go before the people 
at the general elections. Already there is much discussion of new reforms—the cor¬ 
rection of defects in the primary law, the creation of as many representative districts 
as there are representatives in the legislature, a law givmg cities and legislative dis¬ 
tricts the power to recall officers for cause; some go as far as to suggest the adoption of 
the English principle which allows a constituency to select its candidate for the 
legislature from any part of the State, and allows men to seek election in several 
constituencies at the same time, insuring the return of all the most desirable legislators. 

“But, with all this political activity, there is no evidence of dangerously radical 
tendencies. The people want to make their government as perfect as possible, but 
are not disposed to hurry the process unduly. The recent election, indeed, revealed 
in a striking manner their conservative disposition. The defeat of the equal-suffrage 
amendment and the large majority in favor of the general appropriation bill, which 
was almost universally denounced when passed by the legislature, are illustrations 
in point. So far from the initiative and referendum endangering the stability of our 
institutions, they are likely to act as a sobering and steadying influence upon the 
entire electorate.” 

Chapter 22.— COMPLETE SUCCESS IN SWITZERLAND. 

People Would Fight and Die in Defense of Their Sovereignty—Direct Vote Essential to 

People’s Sovereignty. 

Professor Frank Parsons, a member of the Boston bar and an eminent autliority on 
the referendum, on his return from an extensive trip to Europe said: 

“In Switzerland, where the referendum and initiative have been so many years in 
use, the people are now substantially a unit in their favor. They have proved so 
useful in checking corruption and controlling monopoly, wso wisely conservative and 
intelligently progressive, that even those who strongly opposed the referendum before 
its adoption are now convinced of its value. 

“ I was recently in Switzerland for several weeks, visiting nearly all the most impor¬ 
tant cities and talking with men of every class—heads of government departments, 
presidents of cities, college professors, hotel proprietors, secretaries of chambers of 
commerce, lawyers, doctors, editors, business men, and workingmen of every descrip¬ 
tion—and I did not find one man who wishes to go back to the old plan of final legisla¬ 
tion by elected delegates without chance of appeal to the people. I talked with men 
whose pet ideas had been turned down by the referendum, and with men who were 
strongly opposed to important measures adopted by the people, the nationalization of 
the railways, for example, but they were all convinced that on the whole the referen¬ 
dum was a good thing—the people made some mistakes, thev thought, but they did 
far better than a legislature acting free of the popular vote. There are no lobbies, no 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 29 

jobs, no machine legislation; everything is fair and honest, and even the legislators 
like it. because it gives them a life tenure practically (since the pebple frequently 
reelect the legislators at the same time that they veto some of their acts), and, more 
irnpqrtant still, it lifts the representatives into a purer atmosphere, adds to their 
dignity, increases the popular appreciation of their services, and frees them from the 
suspicions that attach to them under the lobby-ridden system of unguarded represen¬ 
tation, or government by an elective aristocracy having final power to make laws the 
people do not want. Nothing could be clearer or more vigorous than the testimony 
of the Swiss people in favor of the referendum.” 

To the same effect is the following testimony of Mr. Wilson, a Swiss official: 

“The repeal of the referendum and the initiative would not be tolerated for an 
instant; the Swiss yeomanry would fight and die in its defense as willingly as they 
would resist a foreign invader who sought to rule over them.” 

The explanation is that the rule of the few in any form is obnoxious. 

Chapter 23.—PEOPLE’S RULE IN SOUTH DAKOTA. 

System Incomplete—Thoroughly Effective as Far as Established. 

To the extent that the people’s rule is established in South Dakota it is a complete 
success. 

The system was framed in a reform legislature in 1896-97, but the initiative system 
is largely ineffective. It prescribes that each measure proposed by 5 per cent of the 
voters shall be enacted by the legislature and submitted to a vote of the electors of 
the State. This is absurd. An initiative bill for a direct nomination system was 
proposed two years ago, and the House, after hesitating a time, enacted the bill, but 
the Senate balked. The sensible thing to do is to enact a law for the advisory initia¬ 
tive to take effect immediately, and at the same time submit a constitutional amend¬ 
ment. 

Furthermore, the referendum system is such that the legislature can prevent a refer¬ 
ence to the people by declaring a measure to be immediately necessary and then give 
to it a two-thirds vote. The supreme court of the State has decided that the discre¬ 
tionary power of the legislature is not subject to review by the courts. 

With this exception the referendum system (the people’s vote) is effective. The 
last step in the establishment of the system was in 1898, since which time the people 
have possessed an option to veto the acts of the legislature. The mere existence of 
this optional power has been effective, for not one measure has been ordered to a vote 
of the people. 

None of the vicious bills were passed, and the number introduced was greatly 
lessened. A noted illustration occurred during the first session of the legislature. A 
bill was fathered by the State bankers known as the negotiable instrument bill. During 
the course of its passage to third reading it became evident that if finally passed it 
would be ordered to a vote of the people and that they would reject it. The party in 
power quietly refused to pass the bill. 

The following statement by Governor Herreid, of South Dakota, is taken from a 
speech in the Toronto parliament by a Canadian who had visited South Dakota: 

“ Since this referendum law has been a part of our constitution we have had no 
charter mongers or railway speculators, no wildcat schemes submitted to our legis¬ 
lature. Formerly our time was occupied by speculative schemes of one kind or another, 
but since the referendum has been a part of the constitution these people do not press 
their schemes on the legislature, and hence there is no necessity for having recourse 
to the referendum.” 

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS. 

In municipal affairs in South Dakota both the initiative and referendum are effective. 
There are 25 cities in the State of more than 1,000 population, and for seven years the 
citizens have been the ruling power. The mere existence of the right to veto the acts 
of the city councils has usually been effective. And only a few questions have been 
presented by initiative petitions. 

Needless to say there is no reign of graft in the city councils in South Dakota. 

(For further details see special number Pennsylvania Grange News for September, 
1904, page 42.) 

(Chapter 25.—PEOPLE’S RULE A SUCCESS IN AMERICAN CITIES. 

Monopolists’ Newspapers and Associated Press Suppress the News Concerning Success of 

People’s Rule. 

The State machine in Iowa has always been cleaner and more in the people’s inter¬ 
ests than in any other State, due to the fact, doubtless, that the farmers have been 
very independent in voting. In one of the Republican platforms some years ago it is 


30 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


expressly stated that members of a party should not vote for unfit candidates, no 
matter on what ticket the names are put. 

Proof of the character of the Iowa State machine is its legislation. An illustration 
is the large amount of power given to the voters as to city affairs by statute law. In 
the revised code of 1897 the people’s veto and the power of direct legislation are 
extended to nearly all the municipal monopolies. 

The result of the people’s control of municipal monopolies in Iowa has kept the 
cities from the degree of political corruption which prevails in the adjoining States. 
While the people of Chicago and St. Louis have been threatening to hang some of 
their aldermen, the cities in Iowa have been politically clean to the extent that the 
people’s rule has prevailed. 

In the year 1900 the Republican party in Iowa reached the stage where it provided 
separate ballots for men and for measures. 

Owing to the character of machine rule in Iowa there has been only a meager third 
party movement. In the neighboring State of Nebraska, where the Republican 
machwie became exceedingly corrupt, a third party came into power. 

Several cities in States other than those mentioned have fully established the 
initiative and referendum in municipal affairs. Among these cities are Los Angeles, 
San Diego, Pasadena, San Francisco, Sacramento, and a few other cities in California; 
Tacoma and Seattle, in Washington; Denver, Colo.; and San Antonio, Tex. Win- 
netka. Ill., has the advisory initiative, installed by the village board. Geneva and 
Belleville, Ill., possess the advisory initiative and advisory referendum, likewise 
installed by ordinance. Detroit has the advisory referendum, and Buffalo the advi¬ 
sory initiative, each of which was installed by act of the city council. 

All these systems are effective. Wherever the people can express themselves by 
direct vote their will is obeyed, except where there is not sufficient interest to pledge 
the candidates for office to obey instructions when given by referendum vote. 

(For further details see page 22, above.) 

Chapter 28.— ANSWERS'TO OBJECTIONS. 

All sorts of objections are urged against the reestablishment of the people’s rule. 

Objections come from three sources: From those who are not informed, also from 
the misinformed, and from the ruling few or their agents. 

Honest objectors, if they will make inquiries, can quickly become informed. 

Even the objections from the ruling few are largely based on a misunderstanding. 
They fail to grasp the fact that the reestablishment of the people’s rule in this countrv 
will tremendously benefit everyone. The monopolists, especially, will be benefited, 
for they have accumulated fortunes and what they most need is a stable government. 
This they can not hope for under the continued rule of the few. Furthermore, under 
the people’s rule every one will share in the improved social conditions. Corruption, 
which now exists on every side, will cease, for the conditions which cause it will be 
terminated. 

The objections most frequently urged are as follows: 

Objection No. 1 .—Too many bills would be referred to the voters. The system is 
impracticable. 

Answer. Not so, for it is the optional form of the referendum that is demanded. 
In other words, no law of Congress or bill passed by a House is to be referred to the 
people unless demanded by petition. This is the optional referendum and is to be 
distinguished from the compulsory referendum—the absolute referring of bills to a 
vote of the people before they can become law. 

And the use of the advisory initiative is to be optional with the voters. In Switzer¬ 
land during the fifteen years that the initiative has existed in federal affairs only three 
bills have been submitted by initiative petition. In Oregon, where machine rule was 
deeply entrenched, twelve questions have been submitted by initiative petition in 
four years. The people are jubilant. They have become free men and women. 
Without direct legislation they would still be ruled by the machine. 

The mere existence of the voters’ option to call for a direct ballot is usually effective, 
just as the mere presence of a policeman keeps down the toughs. The existence of 
President Roosevelt’s veto power is always borne in mind bv the House and Senate; 
likewise the people’s power to instruct, when established, will be kept in mind by the 
Representatives at Washington. Some of the needed legislation, however, will have 
to be proposed by petition, for Congress, as at present constituted, will refuse to frame 
and pass real antimonopoly bills. 

Objection No. 2.—The area of the United States is too great for the successful estab¬ 
lishment of a direct-vote system for public questions. 

Answer. No, for our people are already voting on national issues, as is evidenced 
by the vote on the silver question, expansion, tariff question, etc. We are actually 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


31 


voting on these national issues and, therefore, the country is not too large. What is 
needed, as all must admit, is a system whereby we can separate issues from candidates, 
and separate the issues themselves. This can be accomplished by providing that on 
election day the election judges shall hand to each voter a referendum ballot, in addi¬ 
tion to the ballots for candidates. Isn’t that practicable? Of course it is. Referen¬ 
dum ballots are being used in Iowa, South Dakota, Oregon, and other States. There is 
no question but that the referendum ballot can be used. 

The fact is that the larger the area of a country the greater the need for the referen¬ 
dum ballot, because the questions are more numerous. This proposition can not be 
successfully disputed. 

Objection No. S .—The ignorance and vice in our great cities is too great for a direct 
vote on public questions. , 

Answer. Wrong again, as is absolutely demonstrated by the referendum voting 
itself, for less votes are cast on public questions than for candidates, which means 
that the ignorant and careless voters do not mark the referendum ballots. In other 
words, the referendum system is a system for automatically disfranchising the 
ignorant and careless voters. (See Oregon returns, p. 26.) 

At the same time the people establish compulsory education for children—the 
future voters, and child labor is abolished. 

There is no vote purchasing at referendum elections to attract the ignorant and 
careless, because it does not pay. No one can afford to purchase votes at a referendum 
election except those who are working for a special privilege, and special privileges 
are granted by the people at referendum elections only where the situation necessi¬ 
tates it; for example, the establishment of a county seat or State capital. 

Special privileges in general are the result of delegated power by the people. Re¬ 
establish in the people the final power, and special privilege will soon be a thing of the 
past. 

Objection No. 4 -—Admitting that results in Switzerland demonstrate that the initia¬ 
tive and referendum is a success, it does not follow that it would be a success in America, 
because conditions here are so entirely different from what they are in Switzerland. 

Answer. Previous to 1830, which was about the time the convention system was 
established and became debased to machine rule, the people of the United States 
voted directly on public questions whenever they chose to do so, and that early period 
is America’s pride. De Toqueville, the French historian who came to America in 
1831 and studied its institutions, was in France during the Revolution of 1848 and 
issued the twelfth edition of his book, “Democracy in America,” and in the preface 
said; 

“In the United States for sixty years the people have been the common source of 
all their laws and—consider it well—it is found to have been, during that period^ not 
only the tnost prosperous, but the most stable, of all nations of the earth.” 

“ The American Republic has not been the assailant, but the guardian, of all vested 
rights; the property of individuals has had better guaranties than any other country 
in the world.” 

This was the result of the people’s nile before the establishment of machine nile„ 
and who can doubt but that a return to majority^ rule will be for the best interests of 
society? Oregon is a practical illustration of what the people’s rule means. In 
Oregon the initiative and referendum is a complete success. Machine rule has been 
uprooted and the people’s rights are being protected. The people’s rule is a demon¬ 
strated success in this country, as well as in Switzerland. 

Objection No. 5 .—The submission of all bills passed by Congress is impracticable. , 

Answer. Yes, and there is no one in America who is asking that all bills be referred 
to the people. In Switzerland the compulsory referendum does exist in eight cantons, 
while the optional referendum exists in nine cantons and in federal affairs. This 
distinction between the two forms of the referendum 'should be borne in mind when¬ 
ever there is a criticism of the Swiss system. The objections to the compulsory refer¬ 
endum are valid. 

Our opponents who bring up objections to the compulsory referendum put up a man 
of straw and then knock him over. We, too, are opposed to the compulsory referen¬ 
dum of all bills. 

Objection No. 6.—You would do away with elected representatives. 

Answer. Not at all. We would take from the.m the final power; that is all. We, 
would have them subject to instructions, as are our lawyers, and as were the members of 
legislative bodies previous to the rise of the convention system. Our lawyers look up 
our cases for us and we instruct them. If we should give our lawyers signed powers of 
attorney we should be considered crazy; but the American people give to each Con¬ 
gress a signed power of attorney to go ahead and legislate as it may choose, Congress 
& a imler; and back of it is the party organization which rules Congress, It is high 


32 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


time that we people should reestablish a direct-vote system, so that we shall be the 
final power—the ruling power. 

Objection No. 7 .—It is wrong to say that the people can not elect honest representa¬ 
tives. 

Answer. Our position is misrepresented. Many honest men are in office. What we 
claim is that the system is bad. It is bad because the machine which dominates each 
convention nominates the candidates therein and instructs them. The representa¬ 
tives have practically nothing to do with determining the principal measures that they 
shall vote for. This can not be disputed successfully. The remedy is to abolish the 
convention system by establishing direct nominations and also the initiative and refer¬ 
endum principles. Then the voters will still elect representatives, but will not dele¬ 
gate an unnecessary amount of power. We do not hand to our lawyers a signed power 
of attorney, nor should we delegate to our elected representatives a power to legislate 
as the party machine may dictate. 

Objection No. 8 .—This demand for the initiative and referendum is socialistic. 

Answer. Not at all. It is a demand for the restoration of self-government. The term 
“socialism” describes a proposed system of industry entirely distinct from the system 
of government. 

Chapter 31.—POLITICAL INVENTIONS. 

Three Remarkable Inventions are Destroying the Machine-Rule System of Government. 

When the convention system was established it promoted the people’s interests. 
Soon, however, it degenerated into machine rule. It is eighty-five years since the 
first State convention was held and seventy-six years since the first national conven¬ 
tion assembled. 

Only in recent years, however, has the convention system been improved upon. A 
return to an optional direct-vote system for public questions was proposed in this 
country in 1888. For thirteen years the only plan for establishing the system was by 
constitutional amendment, which involves a long-drawn-out campaign and which 
prevented the question from becoming the paramount issue. Furthermore, it was 
supposed that the only way to secure the submission of a constitutional amendment 
was to capture the State convention of the dominant party or win through the minority 
party or build up a third party. 

Several short cuts to liberty have been devised: 

IMPROVEMENTS IN POLITICAL METHODS. 

1. The advisory initiative. Statute law is all that is needed at the start. There is 
no need to wait for years for a constitutional amendment. In national affairs a consti¬ 
tutional amendment can not be secured while machine rule exists. 

2. A programme has been devised whereby the improved system can be installed 
nationally in a single campaign; and 

3. The systematic questioning of candidates raises the issue, and as it is such that 
candidates dare not openly oppose it, if an opposing candidate or a few citizens stand 
ready to take the case to the people, it compels them to pledge or be defeated. 

These three political inventions are of tremendous importance, for the power to 
immediately install the people’s rule makes it the dominant issue, then the questioning 
of candidates prevents an evasion of the issue (provided an opposing candidate or a 
few citizens stand ready to take the case to the people), and as the issue is such that 
candidates dare not refuse to pledge, the next result is that the people can win at once. 
All the candidates for the National House have been questioned and reports will be 
mailed to the daily newspapers in each district. Watch for the reports, also sail in and 
question candidates at every meeting. See to it that they discuss the issue. 

The invention of gunpowder terminated the semi-independence of the English 
barons, for the King’s cannon could batter down the castle walls. To-day the political 
inventions we have described will quickly cause the overthrow of the trust kings, for 
the machine-rule candidates can no longer evade the initiative and referendum issue, 
and they dare not openly oppose it. Already the people have met with success in 
Maine, Delaware, Ohio, and other States, and for four years have had more than a 
majority of the Congressmen from Missouri. This year a majority in the House can 
easily be secured. And a majority vote in the Senate, too, if the candidates for the 
legislature are questioned. 

Chapter 32.—STATESMANSHIP A PROFESSION. 

American Statesmen are Adaptable to Improved Political Conditions. 

King Edward, when asked what he would do if England should establish a republic, 
is said to have quickly replied: “I would stand for the presidency and be elected.” 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND EEFEKENDUM. 


83 


Likewise our American statesmen are adaptable to improved political conditions. 
As rapidly as the electors establish safeguards it does not mean an entirely new set of 
public officials, for those who are real leaders will be continued in office, living on the 
higher level. They are not machine politicians from choice. Under existing condi¬ 
tions it is absolutely necessary to play the game of machine politics or quit. 

In Oregon, a Republican State, a Democratic statesman is continued as governor of 
the State, because he protects the people’s interests. Most of the old-time Republicans 
are continued in office, but the establishment of proportional representation will result 
in the discarding of mere camp followers. 

Among the advantages to the officeholders themselves of a veto power in the voters 
and the power of direct legislation, is that it lifts the representatives to a purer atmos¬ 
phere, frees them from the suspicions that attach under the machine-rule system, adds 
to their dignity, and increases the popular appreciation of their services. For those 
who are especially adapted, a life tenure is practically assiued. Thus politics becomes 
a profession. 


Chapter 38.—SEPARATION OF ISSUES IS NEEDED. 

Referendum the Open Sesame for Reform—Everyone Must Admit the Need for Separation 

OF Issues. 

The central point in a demand for the initiative and referendum is that the issues 
before the people shall be separated—separated from the question of the candidates’ 
fitness, and that the issues themselves shall be separated from each other. You, the 
people, should possess the power to vote for the measures you want without having 
to vote for a candidate; and you should be able to vote for one measure and against 
another. 

You can not do this. Why? Because the monopolists and the other robbers don’t 
want you to. But this year the candidates for Congress have been questioned on this 
issue, and their report has been published throughout the various districts. Now 
you can get your rights—you can reestablish your liberties. 

Who can object to a separation of the issues? The only objectors are those who 
do not want you to rule. 

Consider the proposition a moment: Everyone knows that the tariff is used as a 
shelter for the trusts, and that it is contrary to the protective-tariff doctrine. But 
you are not permitted to vote on that issue, unless you agree to take the entire 
Democratic party. 

The members of the Democratic party may want to vote for some one of the Repub¬ 
lican policies, but can not do so without voting for the entire Republican party—Tom 
Platt and all his fellow-monopolists. 

That is not self-government by the people. It is merely voting for rulers. And 
that ruler is a machine. It isn’t a man—a Roosevelt or a Bryan—it is a machine, the 
ruling power of which is hidden from sight. The ruling power in the party machines 
is tlie few men who contribute the campaign funds. They are the ones who dictate 
what the money shall be used for and thereby control the party policies. 

You all know that this is so. Then why not insist on a separation of the political 
issues? 

We have a doi^en or more national questions that are pressing for answers, yet not 
one of the issues can be voted upon by itself. 

You know that. Now what are the Congressional candidates urging as the reason 
for your voting for them? Each candidate has a different set of reasons. _ That is a 
fake system of popular government. All that you can do is to vote to install one 
machine or the other; and then there is no telling what the dominant machine will 
do. Grover Cleveland was elected on the tariff issue and called a special session of Con¬ 
gress to deal with the money question. Theodore Roosevelt was elected on the platform 
which did not ask for a railway rate bill, but he forced a fight along that line. 

Machine rule simply means the election of a ruling machine. Fellow-citizens, 
demand a system whereby you can separate measures from men, and can also separate 
the issues themselves. He who objects to this is a traitor to self-government. 

Chapter 45.—LEGITIMATE PROPERTY INTERESTS PROTECTED UNDER 

PEOPLE’S RULE. 

Machine-Rule Government a System of Robbery. 

The monopolists’ real objection to the direct-vote system is that it will terminate 
private monopoly. But it would not do for them to openly state the issue. There¬ 
fore, false issues are raised. The principal one is that property interests will not be 
safe under majority rule. 

S. Doc. 516, 60-1-3 


34 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


The fallacy can be exposed by asking for a definition of property interests. 

Many a fallacy can be exposed by asking for a definition. 

“Property interests” is too broad a term to be used in the present discussion, for it 
includes the monopoly element in railway stock, gas stock, etc. This monopoly 
element must be taken out. Everyone admits that watered stocks are an abomination. 
The water must be squeezed out. 

Furthermore, the monopolists and other great interests are largely escaping taxation. 
They will have to pay their fair share when they lose control of the Government. This 
will affect their property interests. 

What the people’s rule will do is to protect legitimate property interests. 

That such is the case is demonstrated wherever the people are in power; for 
example, in township affairs in this country, and in State and national affairs previous 
to the rise of machine rule, and in Oregon and South Dakota to-day, likewise in 
Switzerland. No one is even claiming that in these places there is any attack on 
legitimate property interests. 

One of the principal means which the monopolists employ for the defense of their 
illegitimate property interests is the cry that the rule of the majority will result in an 
attack on property interests. These monopolists carefully refrain, however, from 
distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate property interests. Captain Kidd 
would have objected to the people’s rule, because it would have resulted in the loss of 
his property. But every legitimate property interest is protected under majority rule. 

In fact, it is only through the establishment of majority rule that you can protect 
the legitimate property interests. Under the rule of the few, as at present, legitimate 
property interests most ]3ay tribute to the trusts. Legitimate property interests are 
robbed on every side. This is splendidly illustrated in Opper’s cartoons. Probably 
$10 a month is filched from each family by the trusts. 

Chapter 46.—STABILITY FOR BUSINESS INTERESTS WILL BE 

RESTORED. 


Restoration of People’s Rule will Terminate Private Monopoly—Every Business Man 

Vitally Interested. 

The restoration of the people’s rule will affect every fiber of our industrial life; 
for example, it will restore stability for business interests. Such will be the result 
of terminating private monopoly. At present we have trust rule. 

To-day every business man encounters special privileges on every side. Under the 
people’s rule there will be a restoration of equal rights between competing firms. At 
present there are unfair advantages. A grain-shipping corporation, for example, gets a 
secret rebate. And this unfair method prevails in nearly every branch of business. 

You say, “We have a new railway law.” Yes, w^e have had several, but each has 
been weak to begin with, being enacted by a machine-rule Congress, and then the 
Supreme Court has knocked out the law. 

But, for the sake of argument, suppose that the leopard will change his spots. Do 
you believe that the seven men on the Interstate Commerce Commission are strong 
enough to compel the termination of secret advantages? Doubtless not. And if the 
present members of the Interstate Commerce Commission are on the people’s side 
they can be ousted in a later administration unless the people’s rule is established. 

The railroad trust is only one of the unlawful combinations in restraint of trade. 
In practically every field of industry there are unlawful combinations. These can 
be reached under the people’s rule. Whatever remedy the public welfare requires 
can be applied. Certain it is that every legitimate business interest will be promoted. 
Private monopoly is illegitimate and will not be tolerated. 

If there is a world-tendency to monopoly of industry—the gradual elimination of 
competing business firms—we need have no fear, for the direct-vote system will enable 
the people to maintain their supremacy. 

Mr. Bryan believes that competition between business firms will be maintained 
during the coming years. It is needless to speculate, for it is all in the future. To-(’ay 
we have competition between business firms, but there are unfair advantages; for 
example, secret rebates. These unfair advantages can largely be terminated when 
the people rule. 

Why speculate as to what the future will bring forth? We have an issue of our own 
for-this year: The question is. Shall the people’s rule be established? Shall we reestab¬ 
lish a direct-vote system for national issues? 

Unless we stick to this issue we are liable to confuse our thoughts. The question of 
socialism or individualism is not an issue. These questions can only arise when you 
consider how industry shall be managed. To-day we are considering whether the 
people shall recapture the Government. To recapture the Government is not social- 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND EEFERENDUM. 


35 


ism or individualism; it is self-government. Let us keep these issues separated. 
Let us fight for the restoration of a direct vote for public questions. When we have 
won that, we shall take up the industrial questions. Not until we recapture the Gov¬ 
ernment can we use it. One step at a time, and this year let us step into a self-govern¬ 
ment era. 

Every citizen who is not a monopolist is anxious for the reestablishment of his 

E ower in the Government. Self-government must be established; then we can con- 
den tly face the future. 

One more thought: A monopolist is not a business man. He is a politician, for his 
existence as a monopolist is dependent upon his control of the Government. 

Chapter 54.—A MORAL ISSUE. 

Ministers Declare for Termination of Machine Rule. 

At the general conference of the Episcopal Church three years ago a half day’s session 
was devoted to papers and addresses showing that the referendum is a moral issue. 
April 15, last year, the following resolution was adopted in Maine: 

‘‘The Maine conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church heartily indorses the 
principles of the initiative and referendum. The secretary is directed to prepare a 
memorial in favor of the initiative and referendum and send it to the Maine legislature 
of 1907.” 

In California two years ago the following circular letter to the ministers and people 
of the State was issued: 

“ Civic reform and a revival of practical righteousness can not be secured by indi¬ 
vidual or religious efforts alone, without regard to environment and practical means of 
working. Our duty and responsibility as voters also requires us to secure a simple 
method by which Christian influences can be made most effective in promoting tlie 
public welfare. The best method yet proposed for nonpartisan political action is direct 
legislation—the initiative and referendum.” 

Then follows a description of the system and the beneficial results wherever adopted, 
and in conclusion: 

•“ Will you not kindly do all you can to aid this great forward movement in the interest 
of morality?” 

This statement is signed by a bishop and the pastors of three Methodist churches, 
the pastors of two Presbyterian churches, two Baptist churches, a Congregational 
Church, an English Lutheran Church, and a Christian Church, all in Los Angeles, 
also a presiding elder in the Methodist Church, and the president of a college. 

What makes this Los Angeles appeal invincible is that the initiative and referendum 
system is in actual operation in that city, and consequently the ministers therein know 
just what it means. 

Nationally and internationally there is the same great need for the initiative and 
referendum. Rev. WTlbur F. Crafts, the legislative superintendent of the Interna¬ 
tional Reform Bureau of Washington, describes in the following words the results should 
the people’s sovereignty be established in national affairs: 

“ Temperance legislation would then receive much greater consideration. And laws 
against gambling, cigarettes, adulterated foods and medicines, and other forms of evil 
would easily be controlled. Military and naval expenditures would be cut down, 
while international peace and good will would be promoted to the utmost. To-day 
the trusts are in power, as is evidenced by trust prices, and they are eager to find world 
markets for the growing surplus—a surplus not beyond our wants, but beyond what the 
wages and incomes of our people can purchase.” 

Chapter 56.—AN ORDER OF TIME IN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 

A Vital Principle in Planning for Reform. 

. That our nation is developing is an admitted fact; as also is the fact that there is an 
order of time in these developments. 

The difficulty is to determine the direction and the exact order of time. 

The only guide for our reason is history. The history of progressive nations indicates 
the line of advance. 

In this country what is the line of the political advance? 

There are two principal streams: One is an onslaught against machine rule and for 
the people’s rule, the other is a demand for the repeal of machine-rule legislation and 
the enactment of popular laws. 

While both lines of advance are being pressed, and pressed hard, the one that is mak¬ 
ing greatest headway is the onslaught against machine rule, for the system must be 


36 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


changed. It is not enough to exchange one machine for another. And it is exceed¬ 
ingly easy to change the machine-rule system, for no one openly defends it. We 
simply have to point out the remedies and educate the people. 

Already a large amount of political reform has been accomplished and the wave is 
rising higher and higher. Direct nominations exist or is promised in half the States, 
while direct voting on public questions is installed or is promised in one-fourth of the 
States, with a national campaign in full swing. 

Most of this is the result of only four years’ work, and the people’s knowledge of the 
movement is increasing at a prodigious pace. 

It is like the advance of the Australian ballot, except that it is more rapid, for the 
relief is much greater, and the existing evils are more serious, which impels the people 
to greater activity. 

Furthermore, a new method of campaign has been devised and is being employed. 
Machine rule is being overthrown in a single campaign and without the trouble and 
expense of capturing the conventions of either of the leading parties or the building up 
of a third party. The programme that is accomplishing this wonderful result is the 
systematic questioning of candidates for the establishment of the initiative and 
referendum. This prevents an evasion of the issue, and the voters’ self-interest results 
in the election of pledged candidates. 

This nonpartisan system has been used for three years with striking success, this 
year’s campaign being the fourth. All candidates for Congress have been questioned 
and the replies are being given to the newspapers. 

Thus the people are becoming informed, and in such a way that candidates must 
pledge or be defeated. 

It is clear that the onslaught against the machine-rule system is making great prog¬ 
ress and will soon win nationally and in all States. 

Compare, now, the movement for legislative reforms: 

In Congress a good start has been made under President Roosevelt’s leadership. 
But the monopolists’ machine is still entrenched and has given us only a few of the 
needed laws; and these have been filled with provisions which the machine-rule 
Supreme Court can declare unconstitutional, as it did the Cullom railway rate law and 
the income-tax law. Isn’t it clear that the most important thing for us voters to work 
for is the immediate establishment of a direct-vote system for national questions so 
that we can enact laws by direct legislation and propose constitutional amendments? 
Certainly! And such is to be the order of time for reform. First the reestablishment 
of the people’s rule and then the people can get what they want. 

Chapter 58.— HOW TO SOLVE THE TRUST PROBLEM. 

Establish People’s Rule and the People will Protect Themselves—Workable Programme 

Pointed Out. 

How will the trust problem be handled when the advisory initiative is established? 

Certain broad lines can be foretold; for example, that excessive rates by railroad 
corporations will be terminated, discriminations abolished, hours shortened for em¬ 
ployees and wages raised, and life-saving devices increased. In other words, the 
amount of actual capital invested will be ascertained and the rates reduced, all shippers 
will be treated alike, the condition of employees improved, likewise the safety of the 
public and of employees. 

That is what the people are demanding and will get. As to just how this result will 
be accomplished, whether by public regulation alone or tlirough public ownership of 
the capital stock, is a detail. 

And the monopolies of raw material, such as coal and iron ore, will be terminated. 
Equal rights for all manufactures will be established. This will restore competitive 
prices for the finished product. It will terminate trust prices, provided there are equal 
rights in transportation and the further improvements indicated in the following 
paragraph. 

A third reform will be the establishment of equal rights for all the patrons of large 
establishments, such as the American Tobacco Company and the American Sugar 
Refining Company. 

A fourth set of provisions, but which probably will not be established for some years, 
will be the legalizing of certain trade combinations and agreements under rigid 
restrictions, for at the present stage of industrial development, even with equal rights 
to transportation and raw material, it doubtless will be impracticable to prohibit all 
combinations. Such prohibitions would largely be ineffective. The unification of 
industry is taking place, and competing firms are discovering various ways to limit 
competition. Some of the restrictions are manifestly for the public welfare; for 
example, the early closing of retail establishments, also the lessening of cut-throat 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 37 

competition. The retail druggists and other tradesmen should not be forced to break 
the law or suffer cut-throat competition. 


LINE OP LEAST RESISTANCE FOR RESTORING INDUSTRIAL FREEDOM. 

The line of least resistance for securing the desired legislation and constitutional 
amendments is to pledge candidates for public office to work and vote for the establish¬ 
ment of the advisory initiative, then call a people’s rule national conference for framing 
the bills and constitutional amendments. After the measures are agreed upon they 
will be affixed to initiative petitions, printed and circulated for signature and filed 
with Congress. Congress will then take testimony, frame competing measures and 
both sets will be submitted to a referendum campaign and vote by the people. The 
people will take their choice or reject them all. 

In such a campaign the monopolists will not invest money, for the result will be a 
foregone conclusion. The monopolists will know that all their special privileges will 
be taken from them and therefore will stay out of the campaign. In the recent Oregon 
contest the monopolists made no effort to prevent the enactment of initiative meas¬ 
ures aimed against them, for it was clear that the great mass of the people were against 
private mono} oly. On election day the vote was against the monopolists, 11 to 1. 

A further fact will be that at election time the ignorant and careless voters will not 
indicate a choice on the referendum ballots. This will leave the decision with the 
intelligence of the country. This was the case in the recent Oregon election. The 
vote on measures was less than for candidates, which is one of the advantages of the 
referendum system. The ignorant and careless voters are automatically disfranchised. 
Yet the monopolists would have the people believe that, because the referendum vote 
is smaller than the vote for candidates, the system is impracticable. That is strange logic. 

It is clear that if the people’s rule is reestablished they will protect themselves. 
They can solve the trust problem. 

Chapter 62.— REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. 


Initiative and Referendum are Constitutional. 

In every State and Territory there is a movement to reestablish in the people a right 
to a direct vote on public questions, and some one asks the question: “Is the initiative 
and referendum in combination with elected representatives a republican form of gov¬ 
ernment?” This is because the Federal Constitution declares: 

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of 
government.” 

What is the meaning of “republican form of government?” 


THE MEANING OF REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. 

The meaning is clear when we consider the surroundings under which this declara¬ 
tion was issued. As'is well known, the contest in the Constitutional Convention was 
between the Republicans and Monarchists. In the words of Luther Martin, a member 
of the Constitutional Convention, in his report to the legislature of Maryland: 

“ It may be proper to inform you that on our meeting in convention it was soon found 
there were among us three parties of very different sentiments and views. 

“One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State gov¬ 
ernments and to bring forward one General Government over this extensive continent, 
of a monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. * * * 

“The second party was not for the abolition of the State governments, nor for the 
introduction of a monarchical government under any form; but they wished to estab¬ 
lish such a system as could give their own States undue power and influence in the 
government over the other States. 

“A third party was what I considered truly federal and republican; this party was 
nearly equal in number with the other two. (Secret Proceedings and Debates of the 
Convention, 1787.)” 

In short, “republican form of government” is the opposite of “monarchical form of 
government.” 

To the same effect is the statement in letter 43 in The Federalist, by Madison, 
addressed to the people of the State of New York, urging them to adopt the proposed 
constitution. In stating the reasons for the provision “The United States shall 
guaranteo to every State in the Union a republican form of government” he says: 

“In a confederacy founded on republican minciples, and composed of republican 
members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess authority to defend 
the system against aristocratic or monarchical innovations.-^ 


38 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFEKENDUM. 


Here is a clear-cut classification; “republican” is used as the opposite of “mo¬ 
narchical” and “aristocratic” forms of government. In other words, a republican 
form of government is a system in which the people are the supreme or sovereign 
power. A monarchical or aristocratic form of government is a system in which the 
sovereign power is in less than a majority. It is the rule of the few. 

The people’s rule, namely, a republican form of government, may be through repre¬ 
sentatives, or by direct vote, or through a combined system of representatives and 
direct vote. At the time the Federal Constitution was adopted the people in the 
States used the combined form. In all the States they elected members of the legis¬ 
lature, and in New England they voted direct on public questions at town meetings; 
in all the other States the people voted direct at mass meetings, the will of the majority 
being an instruction. At town meetings, too, representatives were instructed. The 
Bill of R^hts in the North Carolina constitution of 1776 declared: 

“XVIII. That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult their com¬ 
mon good, to instruct their representatives, and to apply to the legislature for redress 
of grievances.” 

Practically the same statement is in the Massachusetts constitution of 1780. 

These are the unquestioned facts. 

The mixed form of government in use in the States in 1787, namely, partly represent¬ 
ative and partly direct, was a republican form of government. The supreme power 
was in the people. 

This is expressly recognized in Mr. Madison’s letter above referred to, for he says: 

“But the authority of the United States extends no further than to a guaranty of a 
republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing government of the form 
which is to be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are 
continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. When¬ 
ever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to 
do so, and to claim the Federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed 
on them is that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican constitutions; 
a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.” 

The above-described meaning of “republican form of government” is recognized in 
all the books on constitutional law and in the opinions of the United States Supreme 
Court judges. There is no question as to the meaning of “republican form of govern¬ 
ment” except an occasional obiter dictum by judges who have been elected under 
machine rule. 

The trick is to say that a republican form of government is representative govern¬ 
ment. This deception is exposed by referring to the system in use in the States at the 
time this provision was adopted. Then show that “republican” means the people’s 
rule, the exact opposite of a monarchical system of government. 

In Kadderly against the city of Portland, the Oregon supreme court expressly 
held that the initiative and referendum in combination with a legislature is a repub¬ 
lican form of government. This case is published in 74 Pacific Reporter. In South 
Dakota, where the system has been in operation for seven years, the monopolists have 
not even taken to the supreme court the question, “ Is the initiative and referendum 
a republican form of government? ” 


SOPHISTRIES. 

An illustration of how an advocate for the ruling few can twist facts is an open 
letter “To the People of the Proposed State of Oklahoma,” by Virgil M. Hobbs, 
counselor at law. In an article published throughout Oklahoma, he attempts to 
demonstrate that if the people of that State inco^orate the initiative and referendum 
into their system of government it will be an anti-republican form of government, and 
therefore that the State will have to reconstruct its system of government before repre¬ 
sentatives from the State will be recognized by Congress or by President Roosevelt. 

Absolute proof that Mr. Hobbs is wrong is the fact the Congressmen and Senators 
from Oregon and South Dakota are seated at the National Capitol. 

Mr. Hobbs evades this conclusive fact. He is guilty, also, of several other gross 
fallacies. For example, he quotes from letter number 10 in the Federalist as to the 
meaning of a republic and then argues from this as to the meaning of “a republican 
form of government,” carefully concealing the fact that letter number 43, in the same 
book, expressly states the meaning of “republican form of government.” (See pre¬ 
ceding quotation.) 

Furthermore, Mr. Hobbs conceals the fact that all the text-books on constitutional 
law recognize that the meaning of “republican form of government” is found by 
examining the systems of State government in use in 1787. 

Mr. Hobbs conceals all this and quotes from the opinions of two or tliree judges, 
absolutely misstating the point in one of the quotations. 


NATIONAL, INITIATIVE AND EEEERENDUM. 39 

It is clearly apparent that when Mr. Hobbs’s argument is dissected there is nothing 
left of it. It is an attempt to deceive the people. 

Chapter 63.—MACHINE RULE IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. 

Machine Rule is the Rule of the Few—It is Antirepublican and Undemocratic. 

Machine rule is not representative government, for it is a notorious fact that the 
people are not represented. It is a trick to say that machine rule is representative 
government. 

The only States where representative government exists are where the people possess 
the power to instruct representatives, or, better still, possess a veto power and the 
power of direct legislation. 

Where this power is not possessed by the people there is machine rule. The people 
elect a machine which they cannot instruct, and whose acts they can not veto. They 
elect a ruler. This ruler possesses absolute power to inflict on its subjects such laws 
as it chooses to enact, within constitutional limit, precisely as ima monarchy. This 
ruler can snap his fingers in the voters’ faces and they can do absolutely nothing 
except to elect some other ruler at the next election. And the new ruler will likewise 
have the power to rule as it pleases. 

It follows that machine rule is not a republican form of government, nor is it demo¬ 
cratic. It is the rule of the few, as everyone knows. 

Furthermore, it is ridiculous to say that the remedy for machine rule is “more 
democracy.” Machine rule is the exact opposite of democracy. 

[Not in Referendum News.] 

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION IS NEEDED. 

Not an Issue in 1908 Campaign except in Oregon. 

Why is it that the farmers and wage-earners have so few representatives in the 
National House and why so few representatives in the legislatures? 

It is because machine^ rule exists. Even where there are direct nominations and 
the initiative and referendum, the few are in power in the legislative bodies because 
one representative is elected from a district. The few are in control through the 
investment of campaign funds. The wage-earners and farmers are not contributing 
any considerable amount of funds. If they did, the monopolists would outdo th^m. 

Following is proof that in Oregon the few are still in power in the legislature. 
The legislative committee of the State Grange at its last meeting, June, 1907, said: 

“The last legislature, while it appropriated a very large amount of money, failed 
to provide for the taxation of any property whatever that has so far escaped its just 
share of tax burden, and only through the initiative will it be possible to pass just 
laws on taxation.” (Page 59 of Proceedings.) 

The remedy is proportional representation—that is, each class should be represented 
and in proportion to its numbers. 

The system was invented when the English Parliament was established. Four 
interests'^were represented—the barons, clergy, Commons, and King. Representation 
by classes exists to-day in Belgium, in five of the Swiss cantons and two of its cities, 
in Tasmania, in Japan’s House of Representatives, in Finland, and the system has 
been recommended by a Government commission In Holland. 

The system is simple and voting is easy. 

There are two main features in the best systems of proportional representation, 
namely,-large election districts, so that 10, 15, or 20 members are elected from each, 
and the ballot of each voter is counted for 1 representative and no more. The voter 
indicates a first choice, second choice, third choice, fourth choice, etc., so that his 
ballot will surely help elect some candidate, or the system is such that each nominee 
names the ones for whom excess ballots shall be counted should they be received. ^ 

To install proportional representation in the National House a Federal statute is 
all that is needed. Section 3 of the act of Congress of January 16, 1901, must be 
altered.« The State legislatures will each have to carry out the details, as they at 
present are doing for single-member districts. 

The change can readily be proposed to the voters when the advisory initiative is 
installed in Federal affairs and their self-interest will cause them to accept it. 

As to the system that is likely to be installed, Mr. Shibley is of the opinion that it 
will include direct nominations rather than nominations by petition. Only by an 


a\J. S. Statutes, vol. 2, p. 215, Edward Thompson Company edition. 



40 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFEKENDUM. 


election within the part}'’ can the real leaders be named and a platform agreed to. 
The platform can be determined by referendum voting. 

Furthermore, a vote within the party as a ])reliminary to the contest between the 
parties is a necessity. To omit it would mean that the nominations by petition 
would represent nothing but factions, without any well-defined principles and poli¬ 
cies, and in the campaign the contest would be between factions as well as between 
the conservatives and progressives. The issues in the campaign should be clear-cut, 
in order that they may be discussed. 

To select a party’s nominees there should be preferential voting. 

Preferential Voting at the Primaries. 

Preferential voting means that for each office for which a nomination is to be 
made the voter shall indicate first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. In count¬ 
ing the ballots those who receive only a small number of first choice ones are declared 
to be out of the contest and the ballots are distributed to second choice, unless lie or 
she is also out of the contest, in which case the ballots go to third choice. Under 
such a system the real leaders are nominated. 

After the primary election has been held there is an opportunity to nominate by 
petition. 

Mechanism of Proportional Representation. 

After the nominees have been selected and the campaign between the parties is 
nearly at an end the tickets for the election will be printed. The names of each 
}>arty’s nominees will be placed in the party column, the one at the top being the 
name that received the highest first-choice vote at the primary election, then the 
next highest, and so on down to the last, adding one more than is likely to be elected. 

On election day the voters will indicate their first choice for members of the 
National House, second choice, third choice, etc. This they will do by merely plac¬ 
ing a mark at the head of the party column, if they desire to vote the party ticket. 
Thus their first choice will be the name at the head of the column, who was nomi¬ 
nated by the greatest number of first-choice ballots. The second choice will be the 
name of the one who received the next highest vote, and so on down to the last. 
The number elected will depend upon the size of the party’s vote. All this clearly 
appears by noting how the vote will be canvassed. The returns will be sent to a cen¬ 
tral office in the district and each party’s vote applied as follows: If the total vote 
for Members of the National House is 200,000 and ten are to be elected, the quota will 
be one-tenth, or 20,000. Each nominee who gets this vote will be elected. There¬ 
fore, if the labor party casts 80,000 votes it will elect four Members, namely, the 
first four in the party column. The one wdio stands at the head of the column will 
be elected by the first 20,000 votes and the second one by the next 20,000, etc. If 
the farmers’ party casts 60,000 votes it will elect three candidates and the other 
parties will elect the other three. In short, each 20,000 voters in the district will 
elect a Representative, except as fractions of 20,000 votes are cast by the groups, in 
which case the group having the largest fraction will elect a Member.® 

Issues, such as prohibition, that divide the several classes, will be settled by refer¬ 
endum vote. 


® In practice the law will prescribe that the quota shall be less than a division of 
the vote by the number to be elected, for the aim is to provide the smallest possible 
quota. Therefore, in the example given above, 1 would be added to the 200,000, and 
it would be divided by one more than the number to be elected, namely, 200,001 
would be divided by 11, the quota being 18,181. Those who get this number of 
votes will be elected, and this number is the smallest that can be used. Applying it 
to the figures given above, the result would be: 


Votes. 

Quota. 

Remain¬ 

der. 

Farmers’ party. 60,000 

Labor party.; 80,000 

Progressive party. 60,000 

3 time.s. 

4 times. 

3 times. 

5,457 
7, 276 
5,457 

















NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


41 


Nominees placed on the ticket by petition will be voted for by placing opposite 
their names first choice, second choice, etc,, for this purpose going also into a party 
column or columns if desired.« 

Under such a system there will be little or no fusion at the polls. Fusion will 
take place in the House, and then only on such measures as can be agreed to. Thus 
majority rule will prevail in the House, and it will represent the best interests of a 
majority of the people. In that way the public welfare will be promoted. In short, 
representative government will be completely restored. Campaign funds will no 
longer be a determining factor in the contests between the parties, for in the large 
election districts it will not pay to buy votes. No small group of voters will hold 
the balance of power, as is usually the case in the single-member districts. Most of 
the farmers will vote with their fellow-farmers, for in that way their interests will 
best be promoted, and the wage-earners will vote with their fellow wage-earners. 
Issues, such as prohibition, which divide a class, will be settled by referendum vot¬ 
ing, as heretofore. The tariff will be settled in that way, as has been the case in 
Switzerland. 

What the people will do with the tariff and other close questions will be to choose 
between two competing measures or reject both. The only objectors to the establish¬ 
ment of proportional representation will be the unintelligent monopolists and such 
other citizens as do not study the proposed change. 

But where the people believe they are in power the shortsighted ones are likely 
to wish to prevent the minority from being represented. It is extremely difficult to 
get a majority to forego the seeming advantage of shutting out the minority, yet 
oddly enough it is seldom, if ever, possible that the majority of the voters can rule 
through a representative assembly unless there is proportional representation. Such 
is the case in Oregon, as we have seen. 

In Oklahoma the majority were represented in the constitutional convention of 
1907 because the farmers and wage-earners questioned the candidates and pledged 
70 of the 112 members. 

When proportional representation is established in the National House there will 
soon bean end to all special privileges in interstate commerce, but the worst of them 
will doubtless have been ended by the use of the advisory initiative. The attention 
of the House will chiefly be occupied with questions concerning industrial organiza¬ 
tion, international trade, international congresses and courts, restriction of immigra¬ 
tion, public health, educational and scientific research, and similar topics. 

The termination of legal privileges (special privileges) simply means that each 
citizen will receive an equal share of the income from the natural resources, and full 
returns from his exertions. When such a system is installed even those who were 
the present-day monopolists will realize that they have been benefited, for the social 
surroundings will be of a higher order. There will be an absence of the now-exist¬ 
ing degradation and squalor which haunts us all. This change to a higher level can 
come about only through the restoration of equal rights before the law. For the 
more intelligent people to ask for legal privileges is disgraceful. 

That equal rights before the law will actually benefit the former monopolists is 
borne out by Switzerland’s experience. Equal political rights has resulted in equal 
rights in other respects, and it has been a success. In the words of Prof. 
Frank Parsons: 

“I w’as recently in Switzerland for several weeks, visiting nearly all the most 
important cities and talking with men of every class—heads of government depart¬ 
ments, presidents of cities, college professors, hotel proprietors, secretaries of 
chambers of commerce, lawyers, doctors, editors, business men, and working men of 
every description—and I do not find one man who wishes to go back to the old plan 
of final legislation by elected delegates without chance of appeal to the people.” 

The improvements in the Swiss Government have benefited all the citizens, just 
as have the discoveries in electricity. All the people are experiencing a higher and 
higher civilization. In the words of Prof. Jesse Macy, who visited the country 
in 1896: 

“We can not be too prompt in reaching the understanding that what we now 
recognize as democracy is something absolutely new on the face of the earth.” 
{American Journal of Sociology, July, 1896, SJ) 


«The principal question that is likely to be raised concerning the foregoing is. Why 
can not the members of a party use numerals to indicate their first choice, etc.? 
Because the contest within the party was decided at the primary election. To still 
hold it open would be equivalent to ordering another primary election. It would 
keep up strife between the nominees within the party, whereas the group should 
unitedly work for its principles. 




42 


]SiATfONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


It is the first time that a free people have existed in modern times. Nearly a 
century ago a high degree of self-government existed in the United States (see pages 
4-5, above). 

For further details, consult “Representation of interests,” by Prof. John K. Com¬ 
mons, in the New York Independent, June, 1900, and articles by Robert Tyson, esq., 
in the Arena, autumn of 1903, and February, September, and October, 1904. 

[Continuation of Referendum News, September, 1906.] 

Chapter 68.—EVOLUTION OF SYSTEMS FOR INSTRUCTING REPRE¬ 
SENTATIVES. 

The people’s right to elect Representatives gives them the power to exact pledges, 
for they can vote only for those who will pledge. 

One of the pledges from would-be Representatives can be a promise to obey instruc¬ 
tions. At the commencement of representative government in this country the 
voters realized their power and all candidates acknowledged the voter’s right to 
instruct. (See page 5.) By the middle of the last century 17 State constitu¬ 
tions ex])ressly declared that the legislatures should not interfere with the voters’ 
right to assemble to instruct Representatives; and in all the other States the right 
existed and was i-ecognized by everyone. With the death of the Federalist party in 
national affairs in 1817, every one in political life admitted the doctrine of the majority 
rule—the people’s rule. 

At the very beginning of the nation’s life under the Constitution the Presidential 
electors were instructed for whom they should vote. Thus the people took to them¬ 
selves the selection of President and Vice-President. 

With the rise of the convention system, 1820 to 1830, all the candidates for public 
office were instructed as to the leading issues. Party platforms were enunciated and 
the candidates pledged that if they should receive a majority of the votes they would 
consider the platform an instruction, which they would faithfully heed. Thus a 
splendid system for instructing Representatives was developed. It was superior to 
the system of instructing at mass meetings and town meetings because it enabled 
the voters of an entire State and of the entire nation to cooperate. 

But the convention system was debased to machine rule. The voters were unable 
to control the framing of the platform. 

In recent years new methods for instructing Representatives have been developed. 
United States Senators are selected by dii'ect vote of the people, their choice being 
an instruction to the members of the legislature. And the advisory initiative and 
the advisory referendum have been devised. All the nominees for Congress in this 
year’s campaign have been questioned and their replies are being published. In 
this district (supposing the speaker to be addressing the voters of a community) the 
situation is as follows; (State it.) 


Appendix V. 

Why the South Needs the Restoration op Majority Rule for National 

Issues. 

The South, with its considerable proportion of negroes, especially needs the restora¬ 
tion of majority rule for national issues, because it will result in home rule for State 
issues, including control of the right to vote. The rule of the few resulted in a recon¬ 
struction which placed the negro in power in some of the southern States, and now 
some of the northern politicians are proposing to reduce the southern representation 
in order to continue in power. This can be defeated by restoring a direct-vote system 
for national issues, and probably it is the only way to defeat it. 

A cardinal principle wherever the people rule is to provide home rule for themselves 
and to the greatest possible extent. Self-interest impels them to do this; whereas 
under the rule of the few the aim is to centralize the power in the National Govern¬ 
ment, because in this way they can most readily handle it. These claims are proved 
by our country’s history. An illustration of how the people’s rule has resulted in 
home rule is the recent amendment to the Oregon constitution providing that the 
legislature shall not interfere with municipal home rule. Each municipality is em¬ 
powered to frame its own charter except that it shall not conflict with the State or 
Federal constitutions or the criminal laws. 

Furthermore, history demonstrates that the civil war was caused by the loss of 
majority rule and the failure to observe home rule. Machine rule had prevailed in 



NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


43 


national and State affairs since 1844, and during the fifties the southern leaders at- 
teinptod to extend the slave territory and to force the northern people to capture 
fugitive slaves. This is unquestionably so. But as long as the people were in power, 
that is, until 1844, the Missouri compromise was lived up to. It was only when the few 
came into power that trouble arose. In our own day the rule of the few is causing 
trouble. ^ If suffered to continue the South will feel it the most because the ruling 
few are in the North. The remedy is to restore majority rule. 

Taking up the negro problem in detail, we find that in certain Middle States the 
negro vote, under machine rule, is a balance of power and is purchasable, which is 
causing various statesmen to advocate the repeal of the fifteenth amendment. But 
the remedy that is appealing more strongly to the American people is to abolish the 
rule of the few—restore their own freedom. That will not only take from the negroes 
the balance of power, but will also restore self-government to the white men. It will 
put an end to trust domination and the other evils that have sprung up under the rule 
of the few. 

It follows that the^ people of the Middle States are vitally interested in maintaining 
home rule on the race question, while the people of the Northern States will certainly 
not interfere in State affairs in the South, realizing that their own liberties depend 
upon the preservation of self-government for State issues. 

The foregoing ideas concerning the need for a restoration of majority rqje for national 
measures are widely held. For example, Hon. R. N. Hackett, of North Carolina, 
Democrat, elected to Congress in place of Representative Blackburn, who refused in 
the last campaign to pledge for the people’s rule, wrote: 

“I am unqualifiedly in favor of majority rule in this country, ‘unawed by power 
and unbribed by gain,’ by whatever honest and fair means it can be obtained.” 

And such was the attitude of at least 29 of the 107 Members of the National House 
in the Southern States, and their statements were given at a time when they were as 
good as elected. 

And the Farmers’ State Union in Texas and in Arkansas joined with the State 
Federation of Labor in making the initiative and referendum the paramount issue. 
All candidates and nominees are to be questioned and their attitude will be reported 
to the voters. In a short time the sentiment for self-government throughout the 
South will be every whit as strong as in the West and North. 

After reading, please loan to a friend. 

[S. 7208, Sixtieth Congress, first session.] 

In the Senate of the United States. 

May 22, 1908. 

Mr. Owen introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
Committee on Privileges and Elections. 

A BILL Providing for a modern system whereby the voters of the United States may instruct their 

National Representatives. 

Be it enacted by the Seriate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, 

ADVISORY INITIATIVE. 

That whenever six hundred and fifty thousand voters shall present to the Secretary 
of State a petition that there be submitted to a direct vote of the voters of the coun¬ 
try a bill, constitutional amendment, or other form of question as to national policy, 
the petition shall be received, and copies of the same, except the names and addresses, 
shall promptly be transmitted to the Senate and House: Provided, howecer, That not 
more than eighteen months shall have elapsed from the time the petition was opened 
for signatures. 

Sec. 2. [PROCEDURE.] That in case the Senate, House, and President do not 
approve the measure within three months from the time Congress is in session, the 
Secretary of State shall submit it to an advisory vote of the voters of the United States 
as provided in section five. He shall submit, also, a competing measure if requested 
by the Senate and House. The voters may indicate a second choice. 

Sec. 3. [RESUBMISSION.] That where there are competing measures and neither 
receives a majority of the Congressional districts and a majority of the States, the 
one receiving the greatest number of individual votes shall, if it has received more 
than one-third of the votes cast for and against both bills, be resubmitted by itself at 
the next general election. 


44 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


Sec. 4. [ADVISORY REFERENDUM.] That whenever four hundred thousand 
voters shall present to the Secretary of State a petition that a law of Congress or a 
measure passed by either House, or a portion of a law of Congress or a portion of a 
measure passed by either House, shall be referred to a direct vote of the voters, the 
l)etition shall be received and the request granted: Providid, however, That not more 
than eighteen months shall have elapsed from the time the petition was opened for 
signatures. 

Sec. 5. [REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN.] That the balloting by the voters on 
questions proposed by initiative petition sliall be at the next general election follow¬ 
ing the return of the questions from the Senate and House, provided there is at least 
ninety days between the date of the President’s proclamation hereinafter provided 
for in section eleven and the date of balloting by the voters. In case there is less 
time the voting shall be not later than the succeeding year. Where practicable the 
balloting shall take place at the autumn election. The voting on issues presented 
by referendum petition shall be not later than the following general election, pro¬ 
vided said election is not earlier than sixty days after the tiling of the petition. 

Sec. 6. [SPECIAL ELECTIONS.] That whenever one million voters shall join 
in an initiative or referendum petition and shall request that a special election be 
held, their request shall be granted. They may specify ten days from which the 
Secretary of State shall select the dav of election. 

Sec. 7. [REFERENDUM PETITION.] That the referendum petition shall be 
substantially as follows: 

“To the honorable Secretary of State: 

“We, the undersigned citizens and legal voters in the several States, respectfully 
order that the question herewith pre.«ented shall be referred to the legal voters in 
the several States that they may instruct their National Representatives, and that 
the vote be taken at the earliest practicable date (or at a special election some day 
between June first to twelfth, nineteen hundred and nine—for example), but there 
shall be at least sixty days between the time of filing the petition and the referen¬ 
dum vote, and each for himself says: I am a legal voter of the State of-, and 

have personally signed this petition, and my residence address and post-office 
address are correctly written after my name. 

’ “The tune for filing this petition expires eighteen months from (insert date when 
petition is to be opened for signatures). 

“The question we herewith submit to our fellow-voters is, Shall Congress repeal 
the following law (or. Shall Congress enact the following bill? or. Shall Congress 
submit to the several States the following amendment to the National Constitution)? ” 

(Insert here the exact title and text of the measure.) 


Names of petitioners. Residence (if in city, street and number). Post-office. 


Sec. 8. [INITIATIVE PETITION.] That the form of initiative petition shall be 
substantially as follows: 

“To the Honorable Secretary of State: 

“We, the undersigned citizens and legal voters in the several States, respectfully 
order that the measure herewith presented shall be submitted to Congress, and if 
not adopted and signed by the President that it be submitted to the legal voters in 
the several States that they may instruct their National Representatives, the vote to 
be taken at the next general election (or special election) after Congress shall have 
finished its consideration of the measure, but there shall be at least ninety days 
between the date of submission and the referendum vote, and each for himself says: 

1 am a legal voter of the State of-, and have personally signed this petition, and 

my residence address and post-office address are correctly written after my name. 

“The time for filing this petition will expire eighteen months from (insert date 
when petition is to be opened.for signatures). (If a special election is asked for, 
specify here the ten days from which the Secretary of State shall select the date of 
the election.) 

'“The question we herewith submit to our fellow-voters is. Shall the following 
measure be enacted into law? (or. Shall Congress submit to the several States the 
following amendment to the National Constitution?)” 

(Insert here an exact copy of the title and text of the measure.) 


Names. 


Residence (if in city, 
street and number). 


Post-oflBce. 















^AT10NAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


45 


^ Sec. 9. [PAMPHLETS.] That each initiative petition and each referendum peti¬ 
tion shall be duplicated for the securing of signatures, and each sheet for signatures 
shall be attached to a copy of the petition. Each copy of the petition and sheets for 
signatures is hereinafter termed a pamphlet. On the outer page of each pamphlet 
shall be printed the word “Warning,” and underneath this, in ten-point type, the 
words, “It is a felony for anyone to sign any initiative or referendum petition with 
any name other than his own, or to knowingly sign his name more than once for a 
measure, or to sign such petition when he is not a legal voter.” The petition shall 
be seven inches in width by ten inches in length, with a margin of one and three- 
fourths inches at the top for binding. Not more than twenty signatures on one 
sheet shall be counted. Petitions shall be filed with the Secretary of State and each 
pamphlet shall be numbered. The Secretary of State, or his deputy, in the presence 
of the person presenting the petition shall detach the sheets containing the signatures 
and affidavits and cause them all to be bound in volumes, a single printed copy of 
the petition and measure in each volume. The detached copies shall be preserved 
in the office of the Secretary of State for one year. If the question receives an affirm¬ 
ative vote in a majority of the Congressional districts and in a majority of the States, 
a statement to that effect shall be added to the pages and all shall be bound in volumes 
of convenient size and they shall be permanently kept. 

Sec. 10. [VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURES.] That each and every sheet of in¬ 
itiative petition and referendum petition, containing signatures, shall be verified on 
the back thereof, in substantially the following form, by the person who circulated 
s*aid sheet of said petition, by his or her affidavit thereon and as a part thereof: 

“ State of-, county of - ss: 

“I,-, being first duly sworn, say: (here shall be legibly written or 

typewritten the names of the signers of the sheet), signed this sheet of the foregoing 
petition, and each of them signed his name thereto in my presence; I believe that 
each has stated his name, post-office address, and residence correctly, and that each 

signer is a legal voter of the State of-, and county of-(or, of the city 

of-, as the case may be). 

(Signature and post-office address of affiant.) 

“Subscribed and sworn before me this-day of-, anno Domini nineteen 

hundred and .” 

(Signature and title of officer before whom oath is made, and his post-office addre.ss.) 

Sec. 11. [FILING AND NUMBERING OF. PETITIONS.] That each order for 
a direct ballot by the voters that is filed with the Secretary of State by initiative 
petition, referendum petition, and by Congress shall be numbered consecuti\ ely, 
each in a series by itself, beginning with one, to be continued year after year, with¬ 
out duplication of numbers. 

Sec. 12. [SUFFICIENCY OF PETITION—RIGHT OF APPEAL TO SUPREME 
COURT—SPEEDY TRIAL ASSURED.] That whenever an initiative petition or 
referendum petition shall be filed with the Secretary of State he shall at once notify 
in writing a circuit judge in the district in which the city of Washington is situated, 
and said judge shall proceed at once to examine into its sufficiency. If anyone 
desires to appear for or against it he shall receive testimony and arguments. His 
decision may be appealed from to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the 
case shall have precedence over all others. If the court is adjourned it shall be 
immediately convened. The appellants shall serve upon the Secretary of State 
written notice of appeal, and said Secretary shall thereupon transmit to the clerk of 
the Supreme Court such of the original papers and documents in the case as may be 
specified by the appellant or appellee. In case the circuit judge or the Supreme 
Court shall decide the petition is insufficient be or it shall state in what respect it is 
insufficient and return the petition to the committee of the petitioners for correction, 
which corrections may be made and the petition returned to the Secretary of State 
wdthin five days, and when so corrected and returned the petition shall be considered 
filed as of the date that the original petition was presented for filing. No objection to 
the sufficiency of anv petition shall be considered unless the same shall have been 
made in writing and filed within five days after the filing of the petition. 

Sec. 13. [TITLE OF MEASURE.] That for each measure to be submitted to the 
people as*the result of petition the circuit judge shall provide and return to the Sec¬ 
retary of State a ballot title. In constructing it he shall, to the best of his ability, 
give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure, and in such lan¬ 
guage that the ballot title shall not be intentionally an argument or likely to create 
prejudice either for or against the measure. The ballot title shall not resernble, so 
far as to probably create confusion, any title previously framed to be submitted at 
the same election. Any person who is dissatisfied with a ballot title may appeal 











46 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


from the decision to the Supreme Court, and the case shall have precedence over all 
others. The appeal shall be by petition, praying for a different title and setting forth 
the reasons why the title prepared by the circuit judge is insufficient or unfair. No 
appeal shall be allowed from the decision of the circuit judge on a ballot title unless 
the same is taken within ten days after his decision is filed. A copy of every such 
decision shall be served by the Secretary of State or the clerk of the court upon the 
person offering or filing such initiative or referendum petition or appeal. Service of 
such decision may be by mail or telegraph and shall be made forthwith. Said 
Supreme Court shall examine said measure, hear arguments, and its decision thereon 
shall be in accord with the intent of this section. The decision shall be certified 
to the Secretary of State, who shall certify the same to the Public Printer. 

Sec. 14. [PROCLAMATION BY PRESIDENT.], That whenever a petiti 9 n is 
accepted and its title has been decided upon the Secretary of State shall, in writing, 
notify the President of the United States, who forthwith shall issue a proclamation 
setting forth the substance of the measure and the date of the referendum vote. 

Sec. 15. [PUBLICATION OF TEXT OF MEASURES—COPIES FOR DIS¬ 
TRIBUTION-FRANKING PRIVILEGE.] That the Secretary of State shall sub¬ 
mit to the Public Printer a copy of the title and text of each measure presented by 
initiative petition, referendum petition, and by Congress. Printed copies shall be 
supplied the folding rooms from time to time, and the chief of each shall supply 
copies to applicants and in such quantities as demanded, provided reasonable 
assurance is given that they will be placed singly in the hands of the people. All 
bills or copies of bills, arguments, ballots, sample ballots, lists, returns, and all 
other official matter necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this law shall 
receive the franking privilege in the United States post-office. 

Sec. 16. [PUBLICATION OF OFFICIAL REFERENDUM BALLOT—DIS¬ 
TRIBUTION OF COPIES.] That at as early a day as is practicable the Secretary 
of State shall transmit to the Public Printer manuscript copy for the official refer¬ 
endum ballot, indicating the styles of type. Sample ballots shall be on colored 
paper, and there shall be placed at the head in bold type the words “National 
question (or questions),” and the following: “Official referendum ballot to be used 
(date). Issued by order of the Congress of the United States.” The questions 
shall be printed in the order they were filed with the Secretary of State, except 
that each competing measure shall immediately follow the ope it aims to supplant. 
Measures proposed by initiative petition shall be designated “ Proposed by initiative 

petition numbered-;” measures proposed by referendum petition shall be 

designated “ Proposed by referendum petition numbered-;” and each com¬ 

peting measure proposed by Congress in place of an initiative petition shall be 

headed “Proposed by Congress in place of initiative petition numbered-.” 

Where there are competing questions, a brief catch line shall be placed over each 
set and at the bottom of both questions the words “I vote for initiative petition 

numbered-,” “I vote for the measure proposed by Congress in place of 

initiative petition numbered-,” “ I vote against’both.” Where a question is 

submitted without a competing one, there shall be placed over it a brief catch line 
and at the close of the question there shall be added: 

“ Shall it be adopted? Yes. No.” 

“ Shall it be repealed? Yes. No.” 

The voters shall be directed to express their will by placing a cross (X) in the 
square and to the right of the word e.xpressing their choice. There shall be a 
provision for second choice. Following is an illustration: 

(Sample ballot.) 

NATIONAL QUESTIONS. 

OFFICIAL REFERENDUM BALLOT TO BE USED (dATe). 

Issued by order of tl:e Congress of the United States. 

(To county clerk: In printing the ballots insert here the names of State, county, 
township, or ward and precinct.) 

To indicate your choice place a cross (X) in the square and to the right of the 
word expressing your choice. If you have second choice indicate it by “second 
choice” or its equivalent. 


CONCERNING INTERSTATE RAILWAYS. 

Proposed by initiative petition numbered-. 

For regulation of interstate railway rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission, 
the object of which shall be to provide sufficient net earnings for dividends to keep 








NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM. 


47 


the market price of the capital stock practically at par; said capital stock to be 
limited to the reasonable value of the physical plant; with further protection of 
public interests by prescribing civil-service regulations and clothing the Interstate 
Commerce Commission with general supervisory powers equal to those now exercised 
in railway receiverships by Federal courts. Two years after the amount of the 
capital stock in a corporation is ascertained, the Government shall purchase it and 
issue bonds against the roads. 

Proposed by Congress in place of initiative petition numbered-. 


I vote for initiative petition numbered-. 

I vote for the measure proposed by Congress in place of initiative petition num¬ 
bered -. 

I vote against both. 

Attested copies of the printed ballot shall be forwarded by the National Secretary 
of State to the secretary of state for each Commonwealth, inclosing a copy of each 
county clerk. And the National Secretary of State shall supply printed copies to 
applicants and in such quantities as may be wanted, provided reasonable assurance 
is given that single copies will be placed in the hands of the voters. 

Sec. 17. [PREPARATION OF ARGUMENTS.] That arguments shall be pre¬ 
pared for and against each measure to be submitted to a direct vote of the people, 
the length of the arguments not to exceed two thousand words for each side, of 
which one-fourth may be in answer to opponents’ arguments. For one side the 
arguments shall be prepared by a joint committee of the House and Senate, and for 
the othe^by a committee representing the petitioners. 

Sec. 18. [TIME FOR PREPARING ARGUMENTS.] That the first part of each 
argument shall be completed not later than two weeks after the President’s announce¬ 
ment of the submission of the measure. Twenty-five copies shall be filed with the 
Secretary of State, who shall at once deliver twenty-three copies to the chairman of 
the opposing committee. Each committee shall file its answer within two weeks: 
Provided, however, That in no case shall the time be so great as to bring the comple¬ 
tion of the arguments nearer than forty-five days from the time of voting, where the 
question is presented by referendum petition, and eighty days for an initiative 
petition. Where the time for preparing the arguments is less than four weeks the 
time shall be divided equallv between the two parts. 

Sec. 19. [PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF TEXT OF MEASURES, SAM¬ 
PLE BALLOTS, AND ARGUMENTS.] That to each voter in the United States 
whose address is on file with the Secretary of State there shall be mailed a copy of the 
text of each measure to be submitted to popular vote, also a copy of the arguments 
for and against, and a copy of the official ballot. Unofficial lists of voters may be 
filed with the Secretary of*State, and they shall be used if there is no official list. 
Unofficial lists shall be filed by voting precincts, and the names shall be in alpha¬ 
betical order. 

(This plan is practicable and it is the only way whereby the truth can reach the voters. Further¬ 
more, it is the least expensive method, the cost not exceeding 3 cents for 9 questions, and each voter 
will pay his share of the cost, for it will be at Government expense. Compare this with President 
Roosevelt’s plan for a Government subsidy for the “ machines” of the two great parties.) 

MACHINERY FOR TAKING THE REFERENDUM VOTE. 

See accompanying joint resolution (S. R. 94). 

Sec. 20. [CANVASS OF REFERENDUM VOTE—PUBLICATION OF RESULT.] 
That announcements of the result of the people’s vote on national questions shall be 
filed with the Secretary of State. Thirty days after a referendum vote has been 
taken, and sooner if the returns be all received, the returns shall be canvassed by a 
circuit judge of the district in which the city of Washington is situated. Notice to 
the judge shall be issued by the Secretary of State. The canvass shall be conducted 
in the presence of a committee of the petitioners and of the opposition, who shall 
have been previously notified. The result of the canvass shall be placed in writing 
and filed in the office of the Secretary of State, and the public shall have access 
thereto. Immediately upon the assembling of the House and Senate the Secretary 
of State shall file copies of the returns with the clerks of the House and Senate. 

Sec. 21. [SUFFICIENCY OF PROCEDURE.] That the procedure kerein pre¬ 
scribed is not mandatory, but if substantially followed will be sufficient. If the end 
aimed at can be attained and procedure shall be sustained clerical and mere technical 
errors shall be disregarded. 













48 


NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


[S. R. 94, Sixtieth Congress, first session.] 

In the Senate of the United States. 

May, 22, 1908. 

Mr. Owen introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. 

JOINT RESOLUTION Inviting the cooperation of the States in the establishment of a national ini¬ 
tiative and referendum. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the cooperation of the States is desired in helping to 
restore a direct-vote system for national questions through the initiative and refer¬ 
endum principle, the ballots and other details at the polls to be provided for by 
them. To that end it is recommended that each legislature shall enact a law 
providing— 

REFERENDUM BALLOTS.—That at the time the secretary of state furnishes to 
the county clerks in the several counties certified copies of the names of the candi¬ 
dates for State and district officers he shall furnish to each of said clerks a certified 
copy of the national referendum ballot, showing the questions to be voted upon at 
the ensuing general election, and shall instruct the county^clerks to print co])ies and 
distribute to the precinct election officials, the number of ballots to equal that of 
each of the other ballots. 

That whenever Congress shall order a referendum vote at a time other than the 
general election the secretary of state of each of the several States shall transmit to 
the county clerks a certified copy of the national referendum ballot, and shall 
instruct them to print copies and distribute them to the precinct election*officials, 
the number to be printed to be that of the State ballot in the preceding general 
election. 

CANVASS AND RETURN OF REFERENDUM BALLOTS.—That the ballots 
on public questions shall be counted, canvassed, and returned by the regular board 
of judges, clerks, and officers as votes for candidates are. counted, canvassed, and 
returned, and the abstract made by the several county clerks of votes on national 
measures shall be returned to the secretary of state for the Commonwealth on 
abstract sheets in the manner in which ballots on amendments to State constitutions 
are returned. 

WHO MAY SIGN PETITIONS AND VOTE ON REFERENDUM QUESTIONS— 
PENALTIES.—That.,the qualifications for voting on national questions and for sign¬ 
ing national initiative petitions and referendum petitions shall be the same as for 
voting for a Member of the House of Representatives. The following penalties for 
the protection of the direct-vote system are recommended: Any person signing any 
name other than his own to an initiative petition or referendum petition, or who is 
not at the time of signing the same a legal voter of the State, or any person who shall 
unlawfully cast a referendum ballot, or whoever falsely makes or willfully destroys a 
petition or any part thereof, or who signs or files any certificate or petition knowing 
the same or any part thereof to be falsely made, or suppresses any certificate or peti¬ 
tion or any part thereof which has been duly filed, or whoshall violate any provision 
of this statute, or who shall aid or abet any other person in doing any of the acts 
above mentioned, or whoever bribes or gives or pays any money or thing of value to 
anv person, directly or indirectly, to induce him to sign'a petition, or any officer or 
any person violating any provision of this statute, shall, upon conviction thereof, be 
punished by a fine of not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the 
penitentiary not exceeding two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the 
discretion of the court before which such conviction shall be had. 


o 


60 th Congkess, j SENATE. j Document 

1st Session. [ | No. 529. 




SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM 
LEAGUE OF AMERICA RELATIVE* TO NATIONAL INITIATIVE AND 
REFERENDUM. 


A'"" 






Mr. Owen presented the following 

MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE OF AMER¬ 
ICA, CONCERNING INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 


May 29, 1908.—Ordered to be printed. 


MEMORIAL TO CONGRESS CONCERNING A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF ADVISORY 
INITIATIVE AND ADVISORY REFERENDUM. 

To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled: 

Supplemental to our memorial presented to your honorable body 
May 25, we desire to state the programme of the nonpartisan forces, 
including organized farmers and organized labor. It is to restore 
the people’s rule as the result of this year’s campaign. The required 
Federal statute and State statutes for the national system are to be 
secured through the combined action of the nonpartisan organiza¬ 
tions and the progressive nominees. The plan is to systematically 
question the nominees of both the great parties, asking them in sub¬ 
stance, ^Mf elected, will you vote to restore the people’s rule?” This 
will raise an issue which the people will understand and vote for. 

It was thus that most of the 114 members of the National House 
were pledged in 1906. The questions were presented by the National 
Federation for People’s Rule, with the indorsement of the American 
Federation of Labor, representing 2,000,000 voters. This year the 
questions will also be incforsed by some of the farmers’ organizations, 
while the National Federation for People’s Rule is merged into the 
Initiative and Referendum League of America, with State branches. 
In each State the nominees for the legislature and governorship will 
be questioned by the president of the State branch, and the national 
nominees will be questioned by the national office. A report will be 
issued to each district. Evasion by any of the nominees will be 
impossible. 

The plan includes the securing of a majority vote in the Senate as 
the result of this year’s campaign. Nominees for the legislature 
are to be questioned: ^Hf the voters of your district will elect you to 
office will you promise: (1) To vote only for such candidates for the 
United States Senate as are pledged to the people’s rule programme ? 
(2) To vote to so instruct tne hold-over Senators? (3) To vote to 










MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


enact a statute authorizing the people to secure a special election to 
instruct their United States Senator should he refuse to obey the 
legislature's instructions? (4) To vote to enact a State law that 
shall provide election machinery for taking a referendum vote on 
national questions whenever Congress shall so order?’’ 

The nominees for the governorship are to be questioned: ^^If 
elected, will you sign the foregoing bills if the legislature shall pass 
them?” 


ONLY PATHWAY TO REASONABLY PROMPT RELIEF. 

This programme is the only pathway to reasonably prompt relief 
unless there is a widespread use of instructions at town meetings and 
mass meetings. Only by instructing the hold-over Senators can there 
be secured in the Senate the required majority vote for the protection 
of the people’s interests. 

As quickly as the advisory initiative is installed it can be used to 
secure legislative reforms and constitutional amendments, including 
one for the initiative and referendum. The measures proposed 
tlirough the advisory initiative can be voted upon November, 1910, 
and instructions then given to Congress will be carried out during 
the session which begins the next month. 

In this way the following measures can be enacted: 

A law providing that the physical plants of interstate railways 
and the interstate telegraph and telephone lines shall be valued, 
and that the rates charged shall be such as will provide sufficient net 
earnings for dividends that will keep the market price of the coital 
stock practically at par, the capital stock- to be limited to the official 
valuation of the physical plant less the outstanding indebtedness. 

A law authorizing producers to combine, subject to such regulations 
as the people may choose to impose. 

A law providing for equal rights between would-be purchasers 
from monopoly organizations. 

A law regulating the issuance of injunctions. 

A law conferring home rule in the several States for the control 
of the liquor traffic. 

A joint resolution submitting a constitutional amendment for Federal 
regulation of monopolies of raw material, such as coal beds, iron 
deposits, salt deposits, etc. 

A joint resolution for a constitutional amendment for direct 
election of United States Senators by the people, and another for the 
initiative and referendum for national questions. 

A law requiring that delegates to national conventions shall be 
elected by direct ballot of the people. 

A law that the States shall select their national representatives 
by proportional representation, so that each interest shall be repre¬ 
sented m proportion to its number of voters. 

In short, the people can directly provide such laws and constitu¬ 
tional amendments as will protect themselves, and, at the same 
time, restore a truly representative government, after which their 
interests will be cared for by their Government. In the meantime 
the monopolies within the country will have been controlled and 
thus the time will have arrived for revising the tariff. 


Q . S'. 





MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 8 

RESTORATION OF THE PEOPLE’S RULE THE PARAMOUNT ISSUE. 


^ The programme to restore the people’s rule has actually become 
the paramount issue before the nominees have been questioned. 
This is evidenced by the Nebraska Democratic platform.® Two years 
ago the nonpartisan forces, which in this matter we represent, raised 
the issue by questioning candidates, and subsequent events, includ¬ 
ing the people’s rule programme of the various nonpartisan organiza¬ 
tions, have resulted in the existing situation. The overshadowing 
issue is, restore the people’s rule and vigorously use it! 


WILL THE REPUBLICAN LEADERS OPENLY OPPOSE THE RESTORATION 
OF THE people’s RULE? 

This great issue will not be contested unless the leaders of the 
party in power are as autocratic as were the leaders of the Federalists 
and the Whigs. But as both of these parties were swept out of 
power and then out of existence because their leaders were opposed 
to the people’s rule, it may be that history will repeat itself. If so, 
then the reorganization of parties will be along the lines which 
proportional representation shall develop. 

But if this year’s Republican national convention refuses to declare 
for the people’s rule it will not be the party’s death-knell unless the 
programme is specifically condemned, for the nominees when ques¬ 
tioned can favor the movement. For example, in Montana in 1902 
the State conventions of both the Democratic and Republican parties 
refused to promise that their nominees, if elected, would submit a 
constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum, but the 
questioning of nominees and subsequent work upon the legislature 
resulted in a practically unanimous vote in the house and almost a 
two-thirds vote in the senate. But in Missouri in 1902 the Democratic 
State convention declared for the initiative and referendum and 
easily won the election. 

WILL NOMINEES OPPOSE THE PEOPLE’S RULE? 

To realize what it will mean for nominees to oppose the restoration 
of the people’s rule we should bear in mind that they will be asking 
the people for their votes and that on election day these people will 


Nebraska Democratic platform, 1908: 

“We rejoice at the increasing signs of an awakening in the United States. The 
various investigations have traced graft and political corruption to the rei)resentatives 
of predatory wealth and laid bare the unscrupulous methods by which they have 
debauched elections and preyed upon a defenseless public through the subservient 
officials whom they have raised to place and power. 

“The conscience of the nation is now aroused and will, if honestly appealed to, free 
the Government from the grip of those who have made it a business asset of the favor¬ 
seeking corporations; it must become again ‘a povernment of the people, by the people, 
and for the people;’ and be administered in all its departments according to the 
Jeffersonian maxim, ‘equal rights to all and special privileges to none,’ 

‘ ‘ This is the overshadowing issue at this time. It manifests itself in all the questions 
now under discussion and demands immediate consideration,” 

Henry Watterson says: 

“The one great issue is the Republic versus the Plutocracy.” (Louisville Courier- 
Journal, quoted in Washington Herald, May 29, 1908.) 




4 MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 

be the ruling power. They can scratch the nominees who refuse to 
promise to vote for their freedom. That the people understand the 
issue is evidenced by their votes wherever the initiative and referen¬ 
dum has been proposed. For instance, in Montana the favorable 
vote was 6 to 1; in Delaware, 8 to 1; and in Oregon, 11 to 1. Public 
officials realize this tendency of the voters and therefore in Maine 
the last legislature voted unanimously to submit a constitutional 
amendment for the initiative and referendum. No legislator dared 
vote against it. He knew that to do so would mean his political 
death. In Delaware, too, the last legislature voted unanimously to 
install the initiative and referendum in the city of Wilmington—the 
largest city in the State. And in Pennsylvania on the question of 
establishing the initiative and referendum in cities and boroughs the 
last house voted unanimously. 

In Ohio, however, in the last State campaign, 1905, most of the 
Kepublican nominees refused to pledge, while practically all of the 
Democrats did. A report was issued to each district and published 
in the newspapers. On election day when the voters went to the 
polls they used their pencils—enough Republican ballots were 
scratched to cause a landslide. The Democratic representation in 
the senate was increased from 4 to 19—a 475 per cent increase. 
An unprecedented gain. In the house the Democratic gain was 
nearly as great. This, combined with the pledging of some of the 
Republicans resulted in a pledged two-thirds vote. The senate 
submitted a constitutional amendment, but it was badly ‘Moctored.’^ 
The legislature was to hold over and the. vote in the house was not 
pressed. Rev. Herbert S. Bigelow and others went in to arouse the 
people and get them to demand their liberties. The senate reframed 
its resolution, making it first class and passed it. Then the house 
filled it with objectionable provisions and passed it, the vote being 
100 to 16. The speaker of the house took to himself the autocratic 
power of picking as.conferees some of the men who had voted against 
the measure. Of course the two houses were unable to reach an 
agreement. In this way the Republican leaders in Ohio brought 
about a condition that probably will result in their political destruc¬ 
tion, as was the case with the leaders of the Federalists and Whigs. 
In the Ohio State senate enough of the Democrats joined with the 
Republicans to kill- the bill for the initiative and referendum in 
cities. These Democratic apostates will undoubtedly be retired to 
private life. The people are aroused and they understand the issue. 
For example, in Missouri, in 1904, the members of the legislature 
who had opposed the initiative and referendum at the preceding- 
session were kept at home. Some of them failed to get a renomina¬ 
tion and others who did were defeated in the election. The voters 
were the ruling power. 

Oklahoma as well as Ohio is a modern-day example of Federalist 
leadership. In the campaign for the election of delegates to the 
Oklahoma constitutional convention the Democrats put forth as the 
paramount issue the incorporation of the initiative and referendum 
m the State government. It was opposed by most of the Republican 
nominees, and on election day, though the party was in full control 
of all the offices and was backed by the Roosevelt Administration, it 




MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 5 

was completely routed. Of the 112 delegates elected only 14 were 
Republicans, part of whom pulled through because they had declared 
for the initiative and referendum. 

Tliis year, 1908, the people know more about the people’s rule than 
they did in Oklahoma in 1906, in Ohio in 1905, and in Missouri in 
1904.^ Recent investigations and disclosures have exposed the 
machine-rule system, and at the same time the beneficent results of 
the people’s rule are better known. In short, the people are thor¬ 
oughly aroused, are fairly well posted, and it follows that nothing 
can keep them from voting for themselves. 

Five additional appendixes are herewith presented, in which are 
the opinions of eminent statesmen, further answers to objections, a 
brief for debate, followed by summary and conclusion. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Initiative and Referendum League of America, 
By Geo. H. Shibley, President, 

Robt. L. Owen, Chairman National Committee. 

Washington, D. C., May 29, 1908. 


Appendix VI. 

[I to V are in the first memorial, S. Doc. —, Sixtieth Congress, first session.] 

ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY BY EMINENT STATESMEN. 

At Boston’s cradle of liberty, Faneuil Hall, April, 1907, President Eliot, of Harvard 
University, in an address advocating the enactment of a statute by the Massachusetts 
legislature for the ad\dsory initiative, so that the people can instruct their representa¬ 
tives, said: 

“Now, what has been the crying evil in American politics in the past forty years? 
It has been secret influence. That is the great crying evil concerning legislative and 
administrative bodies. 

“These things are perfectly well known. Every intelligent American citizen knows 
how these private secret influences are brought to bear on American legislators. They 
tell us that the present bill degrades Senators and Representatives, because it looks 
forward to the expression of thousands and perhaps millions of voters giving voice at 
the general election to their views on public matters. Is that the way in which 
American legislators are degraded these days? 

“No. They never are, and never have been. Where American legislators are 
degraded in these days is by submission to machines. 

‘ ‘ There is an excellent definition of true conservatism, the best I have ever been 
able to find, in the epistles of St. Paul. This definition is: ‘Prove all things; hold fast 
to that which is good.’ That is just it—hold fast to things that are good; but to hold 
fast to the machines, as to old junk, to hold fast to the obsolete methods of government, 
is not true conservatism. 

‘ ‘ And now, fellow-citizens, we hear a great and familiar cry. ‘ This is a revolutionary 
measure, this is a radical measure, this is a socialistic, an anarchistic measure. Let 
the conservative people of the Commonwealth beware! ’ 

“Has America been revolutionary in times past? Is not a democracy the most con¬ 
servative government in the world? 

“Which is the most conservative, Russia or the United States? Which is the most 
socialistic, anarchistic, Russia or the United States? ” 

Prof. Charles Zueblin, late of the University of Chicago, in an address at Boston, 
during May, 1907, advocated the initiative and referendum for national affairs. At 
Chicago, May 25, he amplified his statement by saying that his views were shared 
by President Eliot, of Harvard, and President James, of Illinois State University. 
“Wliat we need,” said Professor Zueblin, “is a new constitution that will give us a 



6 


MEMOKIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


national initiative and referendum, and place the government of the country once 
more in the hands of the people, where the fathers meant it to be. The present 
Constitution was framed for several centuries ago and it filled exactly the needs of 
that day. 

“It is totally inadequate to meet the increased necessities of a country that has 
grown to many hundred times the size of the colonies of those days.” 

Professor Zueblin pointed out that under the present system it is possible for the 
will of the people to be defeated through the following agencies and causes: 

Lack of sympathy of United States Senators with the common people. 

Election of representatives to please parties rather than to represent the people. _ 

Czarlike power of the Speaker to prevent the House from taking popular action 
should it so desire. 

Power of the Executive through the veto to defeat both House and Senate. 

Power of Supreme Court to set aside any law it chooses as not being in accord with 
the old-time Constitution. 

“The cities of Galveston and Des Moines have ideal city governments,said the 
professor, “and it is high time that the Government of the nation, which is of infi¬ 
nitely larger importance, should be brought up-to-date in a similar manner.” 

(Chicago Examiner, May 25, 1908.) 

Miss Frances E. Willard, president-founder of the Woman’s Christian Temperance 
Union, wrote the following to Prof. Frank Parsons, July, 1897: 

“ I believe in direct legislation, and think it is so greatly needed that language can 
not express the dire necessity under which we find ourselves. The reign of the peo¬ 
ple is the one thing my soul desires to see; the reign of the politician is a public igno¬ 
miny. I also believe that direct legislation is certain to become the great political 
issue in the immediate future. The people are being educated by events.' They 
are coming to see that there is no hope for reform under the existing system of voting, ” 

The prophecy of that great leader has come true. 

During the present year Governor John Burke, of North Dakota, wrote: 

“ I am satisfied that the initiative and referendum is a practical system, and there 
ought to be no objection to it in a country that boasts of being a government of the 
people, 

“The initiative and referendum simply puts the power of legislating in the hands 
of the people, where it belongs, in a government of the people. 

“ It is a great reserve power that the people will seldom have to use. 

“The members of the legislature will support legislation in favor of the interests 
of the people, because they will know that if they should fail, then the people can 
have the law which they desire submitted to them directly at the polls, and for this 
reason the legislative assembly will be disposed to comply with the demands of the 
people. 

“The legislature will be careful about passing laws against the interests of the people, 
because its members will know that if they do the people can have such law sub¬ 
mitted to them directly at the polls and there reject it. 

“It ought to free our legislative halls of the lobbyists, because it will be useless for 
the corporations and special interests to keep their lobbyists in the capitol during 
the session, knowing of this great reserve power in the hands of the people by which 
they can undo all that the legislature, the lobbyist, and corporation have done.” 

Hon. John A. Johnson, Democratic governor of Minnesota, in his inaugural message 
to the legislature, said: 

“I would call your attention to the merits of the advisory initiative and referendum. 
This permits the people of a State, county, city, village, or town to express their 
views upon questions affecting their organizations and is fast gaining ground upon 
the theory that the duly elected officers are the servants of the people who elected 
them and will be guided l:»y the expressed views of a majority. 

“The advisory initiative and referendum is but a step further than the right of 
petition, and is not binding upon their officers. The enactment of a law providing 
for an advisory initiative and referendum can be accomplished without a constitu¬ 
tional amendment, and I am firmly of the opinion that such legislation is desirable. 
There can be, I am sure, no valid reason against the submission to the people of a 
proposed constitutional amendment providing for a direct initiative and referendum. 
This would give the people an opportunity to vote on the ciuestion whether or not 
they want the right to instruct their representatives and also the further right to 
pass upon the laws enacted by their legislature. But whether or not you would 
care to go so far in this direction, I would urge your consideration of a plan for an advi¬ 
sory initiative and referendum.” 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 7 

Hon. George E. Chamberlain, governor of Oregon, where the initiative and refer¬ 
endum is in operation, says: 

“I approve the formation of a national initiative and referendum committee^ 
and firmly believe that the correction of most of the evils which afflict us will never 
be accomplished until the people take back the power which they have unconsciously 
surrendered to conventions, political machines, and party bosses.” 

Louis F. Post, editor of The Public, writes: 

“ ye_ry gladly do I assent to your use of my name as a charter member of the national 
initiative and referendum committee. To my mind the initiative and referendum 
IS the primary reform, the one next at hand, the one without which every other must 
be more difflcult if not altogether impossible.” 

This is in line with the statement of William J. Bryan to the Oklahoma DemocrMic 
State convention, June, 1907: 

“Let me suggest that you take as your campaign keynote: ‘Let the people rule.’ 
I want to see it in your campaign and in the national campaign.” 

Hon. T. M. Patterson, former United States Senator, says: 

“It is only through the most practical form of initiative and referendum that the 
people can have self-government. Our representative system in nation. State, and 
municipality is rapidly degenerating into a farce. May the people’s rule be estab¬ 
lished at the earliest possible moment.” 

Mr. Byron W. Holt, the noted economist, writes: 

“I fear for our country if we do not soon establish a government for the people. 
Things are getting too rotten to last much longer.” 

Hon. William Lloyd Garrison, the present day apostle of freedom, writes: 

“I am delighted to express my belief in and sympathy with the proposal for a 
national initiative and referendum committee.” 

Mr. Henry George, jr., worthy son of a great statesman, writes: 

“I most certainly am for the initiative and referendum and shall be glad to help 
in the national initiative and referendum committee.” 

Hon. Jesse J. Dunn, chairman Oklahoma Democratic State committee, 1906, and 
elected supreme court judge, writes: 

“Prior to the election for delegates to the constitutional convention in Oklahoma 
the Democratic party had never declared for the initiative and referendum. In that 
campaign we put this declaration in our platform and made it the paramount issue. 
The fight was waged on this as our rallying cry. The Republican organization decried 
it, scoffed at it, and argued against it. It had the prestige of having been the party 
which granted us the enabling act. Its boards, entirely partisan, formed our con¬ 
stitutional convention districts as they saw fit. It had the administration of govern¬ 
ment in both Territories and in the nation and controlled all the election machinery. 
Every post-office was a recruiting station, and yet with the principle of direct legisla¬ 
tion for our battle cry we carried 99 out of the 112 districts. We would have car¬ 
ried the others except for local conditions which rendered them impossible. Direct 
legislation emancipates the people from the control of the legislature. It affords a 
shield to an honest legislature and a sword to the people. I believe the people of 
the nation are in favor of it.” 

Robert L. Owen, United States Senator from Oklahoma, wrote last January: 

“Our people greatly value the initiative and referendum principle and think it 
should be a national issue. I ])ersonally campaigned for it from one end of the State 
to the other.” 

Hon. Scott Ferris, Member of Congress from Oklahoma, writes: 

“Practical use, in my judgment, is all that is necessary to make the initiative and 
referendum indispensable throughout the Nation, the States, and the municipalities.” 

Prof. Frank Parsons, president of the National Public Ownership League, writes: 

“Direct legislation is the fundamental reform. It, and it only, can destroy the 
private monopoly of legislative power and establish public ownership of the Govern¬ 
ment.” 

Every true Republican believes with Lincoln and Jefferson in the people’s rule. 
Hon. W. E. McCullagh, Republican member of the Pennsylvania general assembly, 
writes: 

“I am very much in favor of the initiative and referendum and had the pleasure of 
introducing a bill in the house of representatives in this State, which passed the house 
by 155 to nothing, but which was promptly killed by the ‘nonrepresentatives’ of the 
people in the Senate.” 

Hon. William T. Creasy, Democratic representative in the Pennsylvania legislature 
and member of the State grange legislative committee, writes: 

“I accept your invitation to become a charter member of the proposed national com¬ 
mittee. For a long time I have been of the opinion that the only way the people can 


8 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


regain control of the Government and stop the corruption in legislative affairs is to 
establish the initiative and referendum. Fourteen years’ experience in the Pennsyl¬ 
vania legislature has convinced me that legislatures as a whole are the creatures of the 
bosses who serve the great interests.” 

Hon. George Fred Williams, the great leader of Democratic thought in Massachusetts, 
writes: 

I .“The more I have to do with politics the more I realize the necessity for pushing 
for the initiative and referendum. For several years I have insisted that this issue 
and public ownership of public utilities are the only two questions worth considering; 
they lie at the root of all others. 

Hon. R. F. Pettigrew, former United States Senator, writes: 

“The time is ripe to enter the field federally. I heartily approve of a national 
initiative and referendum committee, and shall be pleased to become a charter 
member.” 

Hon. Frederic C. Howe, State senator in Ohio and senate leader for the initiative 
and referendum, writes: 

‘ ‘ The remarkable growth of the direct-legislation movement is inspiring. I strongly 
approve the formation of a national initiative and referendum committee.” (The 
■committee has ])een merged into the Initiative and Referendum League of America.) 

Nineteen State granges have declared for the people’s rule, and C. B. Kegley, master 
of Washington State Grange, writes: 

“ I shall be glad to become a charter member of the national initiative and referen¬ 
dum committee. Inclosed are names and addresses of some thoroughly reliable men. 
We are now in the midst of our harvest and I am overrun with work, but stop to write 
my acceptance and wish you success.” 

Mr. Obadiah Gardner, former master Maine State Grange, writes: 

“ I am heartily in favor of the formation of a national initiative and referendum 
committee and will do all I can to advance the cause.” 

Mr. John Mitchell, president of the United Mine Workers and second vice-president 
American Federation of Labor, writes: 

“ It gives me pleasure to accept your invitation to become a charter member of the 
national initiative and referendum committee.” 

Erving Mdiislow, secretary of the Anti-Imperialist League, writes: 

“Of course I am throughly with you in your plan for the national initiative and 
referendum committee and heartily wish you success.” 

Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt, president International Woman Suffrage Alliance, 
writes: 

“Of course I am willing to become a member of the propsed committee on initiative 
and referendum. I hope the new movement may succeed in interesting all who are 
favorable, and that the serious effort to secure initiative and referendum laws will 
be greatly strengthened.” 

B. 0. Flower, editor The Arena, a people’s-rule magazine, writes: 

“The battle for restoration of the people’s rule is bound to become hotter and hot¬ 
ter as the months pass by, and it is extremely necessary for us to stand shoulder to 
shoulder in this great fight.” 

Thomas H. Barry, for twenty years editor and proprietor of the San Francisco 
Star, writes: 

‘ “I accept your in\Ration to become a charter member. I shall continue to fight 
for the people’s rule while God give me strength to speak or handle a pen.” 

Hon. Frank L. Dingley, leading Republican editor in Maine, writes: 

' ‘ I am sure that if the people will use the initiative and referendum they will do 
much for representative government. I do not contemplate diminishing my zeal 
in the good work.” 

Dr. C. F. Taylor, editor Medical World and Equity Series, and one of the most 
practical of reformers, approved the formation of a large national committee, and said: 

“Yes, we elect our rulers; but we do not want rulers. We want agents; and we 
want the usual control over our public agents that private parties have over theR 
private agents; that is, we want the right of revising our agents’ acts, and we want 
the right to discharge our agents if we desRe. Only in this way can we get ‘Govern¬ 
ment of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ ” 

Prof. Thomas E. Will, secretary to The American Forestry Association, writes: 

“ Direct legislation is the hope of the Republic. The next advance step is a nation¬ 
wide committee to promote it. Let every man do his duty. ” 

Hon. Champ Clark, assistant minoiity leader in the National House, wrote last 
July: 

“The time has arrived for organized, widespread, active work for the people’s 
rule.” 




MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


9 


To the same effect are statements Ijy— 

lion. T. P. Gore, United States Senator for Oklahoma. 

lion. Wilkinson Call, former United States Senator from Florida. 

Hon. Lucius F. C. Garvin, former governor of Rhode Island. 

Hon. Andrew E. Lee, former governor of South Dakota. 

Hon. E. L. Fulton, M. C. for Oklahoma, first Member of Congress to introduce 
an initiative and referendum measure. 

Hon. James D. Davenport, M. C. for Oklahoma. 

Hon. George E. Cotterill, State senator in Washington. 

Hon. L. A. Ueland, State representative in North Dakota. 

Hon. James C. Dahlman, Democratic national committeeman for Nebraska. 
Hon. Harry Wentzy, chairman South Dakota Democratic State central com¬ 
mittee. 

Hon. J. Spellacy, chairman California Democratic State central committee. 

Hon. J. L. Consideine, chairman Nevada Democratic State central committee. 
Hon. Alexander Troup. 

Hon. James H. Ferris, chairman People’s Party national committee. 

Jay W. Forrest, chairman national provisional committee of radicals. 

Plon. Thomas E. Watson, ex-M. C. and former nominee for President. 

Hon. Wharton Barker, former nominee for Vice-Presidency of the United 
States. 

Elmer E. Greenwalt, president Pennsylvania Federation of Labor. 

J. H. P>icke, president Texas Federation of Labor. 

Thomas J. Sheridan, president Missouri Federation of Labor. 

Eltweed Pomeroy, president National Direct Legislation League. 

George H. Strobell, secretary National Direct Legislation League. 

Hon. W. S. U’Ren, secretary Oregon People’s Power League. 

Hon. Robert Treat Paine, jr., president Massachusetts Public Opinion League. 
Clarence Van Dyke Tiers, president Pennsylvania Initiative and Referendum 
League. 

W. H. Kaufman, secretary State of Washington Direct Legislation League. 

H. B. Maurer, secretary New York State Initiative and Referendum League. 
Dr. Wm. P. Hill, presidient Missouri Referendum League. 

Rev. H. Heber Newton. 

Robert Hunter. 

Rev. B. F. Mills. 

Mrs. Florence Kelly. 

N. O. Nelson. 

Prof. Edward W. Bern is. 

Walter Thomas Mills. 

Lewis Stockton. 

Hon. Brand Whitlock. 

Charles F. Nesbit. 

Hon. H. W. Lawrence. 

Hon. W. T. La Follette. 

PRESIDENT Roosevelt’s attitude. 

In his last annual message to Congress, December 3, 1907, President Roosevelt said: 
“In my message to the Congress on December 5, 1905, I said: * * * 

“ ‘ Our steady aim should be by legislation, cautiously and carefully undertaken, 
but resolutely persevered in, to a'ssert the sovereignty of the National Government 
by affirmative action. * * * .’ 

“ I have called your attention in these quotations to what I have already said because 
I am satisfied that it is the duty of the National Goverament to embody in action 
the principles thus expressed. ” 

In this message President Roosevelt further said: 

“It is profoundly immoral to put or keep on the statute books a law, nominally in 
the interest of public morality, tliat really puts a premium upon public immorality, 
by undertaking to forbid honest men from doing what must be done under modern 
business conditions, so that the law itself provides that its own infraction must be the 
condition precedent upon business success. To aim at the accomplishment of too 
much usually means the accomplishment of too little, and often the doing of positive 
damage. In my message to the Congress a year ago, in speaking of the antitrust laws, 

I said: , i • 

“‘The actual working of our laws has shown that the effort to prohibit all combina¬ 
tion, good or bad, is noxious where it is not ineffective. Combination of capital, like 


10 MEMOKIAL OF INITIATIVE AND KEFEKENDUM LEAGUE. 


combination of labor, is a necessarjr element in our present industrial system. It is 
not possible completely to prevent it; and if it were possible, such complete preven¬ 
tion would do damage to the body politic. Wliat we need is not vainly to try to 
prevent all combination, but to secure such rigorous and adequate control and super¬ 
vision of the combinations as to prevent their injuring the public, or existing in such 
forms as inevitably to threaten injury. * * * 

“‘It is unfortunate that our present laws should forbid all combinations; instead 
of sharply discriminating between these combinations which do good and those com¬ 
binations which do good and * * *. Often railroads would like to combine for 
the purpose of preventing a big shipper from maintaining improper advantages at the 
expense of small shippers and of the general public. Such a combination, instead of 
being forbidden by law, should be favored. * * * 

“ ‘ It is a public evil to have on the statute books a law incapable of full enforcement, 
because both judges and juries realize that its full enforcement would destroy the 
business of the country; for the result is to make decent men violators of the law 
against their will and to put a premium on the behavior of the willful wrongdoers. 
Such a result in turn tends to throw the decent man and the willful wrongdoer into 
close association and in the end to drag down the former to the latter’s level; for the 
man who becomes a lawbreaker in one way unhappily tends to lose all respect for law 
and to be willing to break it in many ways. 

“‘No more scathing condemnation could be visited upon a law than is contained in 
the words of the Interstate Commerce Commission when, in commenting upon the 
fact that the numerous joint traffic associations do technically violate the law, they 
say: 

“The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Trans-Missouri case and 
the Joint Traffic Association case has produced no practical effect upon the railway 
operations of the country. Such associations, in fact, exist now as they did before 
these decisions, and with the same general effect. In justice to all parties, we ought 
probably to add that it is difficult to see how our interstate railways could be operated 
with due regard to the interest of the shipper and the railway without concerted action 
of the kind afforded through these associations.” ’ 

“This means that the law as construed by the Suprefne Court is such that the busi¬ 
ness of the country can not be conducted without breaking it.” 

In a special message to Congress January 31 President Roosevelt arraigned the 
dishonest rich and asked that monopoly corporations be curbed. In part he said: 

“Superficially, it may seem that the laws the passage of which I herein again advo¬ 
cate—for I have repeatedly advocated them before^—are not connected. But in 
reality they are connected. Each and every one of these laws, if enacted, would rep¬ 
resent part of the campaign against privilege, part of the campaign to make the class 
of great property holders realize that property has its duties no less than its rights.” 

Commenting on this special message by President Roosevelt Hon. William J. Bryan 
is reported to have said: 

“All friends of reform have reason to rejoice that the President has used his high 
position to call attention to the wrongs that need to be remedied. He has discovered 
the running sore in our national life. He has pointed out the corrupting influences 
that flow from predatory wealth and from the monopolistic enterprises which have 
given unearned riches to the few, who have levied tribute upon the whole country. 

“His warnings are entirely in harmony with the warnings which Democrats have 
been uttering for more than a decade, and I hope that the Democrats in the Senate 
and House will promptly challenge the Republicans to meet the issues presented by 
the President.” 

(New York Evening Journal, February 1, 1908.) 


Appendix VII. 

FURTHER ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS. 

Objections come from three sources: From those who are not informed, from the 
misinformed, and from the ruling few and their agents. , 

The ruling few throw dust, endeavoring to confuse the issue, for they can not win in 
a straight-out debate, as is e\ddenced by the results wherever the issue is thoroughly 
threshed out. In Maine, for example, the vote submitting the constitutional amend¬ 
ment was unanimous. In Pennsylvania the last house by a uanimous vote passed 
a bill for the initiative and referendum in cities and boroughs. It is clear, then, 
that the initiative and referendum wins in a straight-out debate. It is only by falla- 



MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


11 


cies that our opponents can make a show. All the facts are against them. This is 
shown by an examination of their objections. Following are the ones most frequently 
urged against the establishment of the initiative and referendum in combination 
with a legislature or Congress: 

Objection No. 9 .—It would destroy representative government. 

Answer. The exact opposite would occur. Representative government will be 
restored, as is evidenced by actual results wherever the initiative and referendum are 
established. In Oregon, for example, the establishment of a veto power in the voters 
and the power of direct legislation has made the legislature more representative of 
the people’s interests, and direct legislation is being used to establish proportional 
representation. Proportional representation will be real representative government— 
the people’s interests will be fully represented. The opening wedge for the establish¬ 
ment of proportional representation is the initiative and referendum principle in 
combination with legislatures and with Congress. 

To-day machine rule exists, and machine rule is not representative government, as 
you all know. Representative government used to exist in this country, for the voters 
possessed an option to instruct their elected representatives. But the convention 
system arose, and the voters ceased to exercise the right to instruct the elected repre¬ 
sentatives. Thus the final power became lodged in the party machine, and then the 
convention system was debased, and we had the detestable rule of the few. This 
system has been terminated in Oregon and in several other States by the establish¬ 
ment of a veto power in the voters—the power of direct legislation. The legislature 
is used, but it is not the final power; the final power is in the voters, where it belongs. 
The initiative and referendum, then, restores representative government. It does 
not destroy representative government. It destroys machine rule. 

Objection No. 10.—The government erected by the fathers should be maintained. 

Answer. The existing system of government has not existed since 1787, but only 
for about seventy-five years. To refuse to note the distinction between the existing 
machine rule and the preceding people’s rule is a gross fallacy. It is an attempt to 
deceive the public. 

Objection No. 11 .—An advisory vote system for national questions would be uncon¬ 
stitutional, for “the Federal Constitution vests all legislative power exclusively in 
Congress.” Statement by Judge Edgar D. Crumpacker, M. C., published in Refer¬ 
endum News, November, 1906. 

Answer. What the Constitution declares is; 

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congi-ess of the United 
States.” 

And Article IX of the amendments provides: 

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to 
deny or disparage others retained by the people.” 

Among the rights retained by the people is that of instructing Representatives. 
This is evidenced by the fact that at the time this amendment was adopted it was 
customary for the people to instruct Representatives, and they continued to instruct 
them. The people’s right to instruct is also evidenced at that time by the constitu¬ 
tions in four States, namely, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and 
North Carolina. * The Bill of Rights expressly prohibits the legislature from inter¬ 
fering with the people’s right to assemble to instruct their Representatives. 

Most of the Federalists objected to instructions from the people. They objected to 
the people’s rule. They believed in elected rulers. These autocratic Federalists 
came into full power during 1798, and during the two following years did such high¬ 
handed things that at the next election the people ousted them. Men were elected 
pledged to majority rule, as is evidenced by Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural message. 
So successful was the majority rule system that with the inauguration of Monroe, 1817, 
the opposition party died. 

The year before, Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Taylor said: 

“ Your book [An Enquiry into the Principles of Government] settles unanswerably 
the right to instruct representatives and their duty to obey.” 

Objection No. 12 .—The Federal Constitution declares, “The United States shall 
guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government.” The 
installation of the initiative and referendum in connection with the legislature would 
make an unrepublican form of government. 

Answer. That is queer logic; To restore the people’s rule would be unrepublican. 
Not so; what the United States Government guarantees is protection against a monar¬ 
chical form of government and an aristocratic form of government. It was so stated 
in 1787 by the advocates of the proposed Constitution. (Letter 43, the Federalist.) 

Furthermore, the meaning is shown by referring to the State governments existing 
in 1787 which admittedly were republican. In them the voters balloted direct on 


12 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


public questions whenever they chose to do so, and the will of the majority was an 
instruction to legislative representatives, who obeyed. The initiative and referen¬ 
dum is in principle the same as instructions to elected representatives. 

Additional authorities are the decisions of the supreme courts of Oregon and Cali¬ 
fornia, and of President Roosevelt admitting Oklahoma to statehood. In the procla¬ 
mation of the President it is expressly stated that the system of government is republi¬ 
can. The President said: 

“Whereas it appears that the said constitution and government of the proposed 
State of Oklahoma are Republican in form.” (Proclamation issued November 16, 
1907.) And this proclamation was so issued in this form after consideration of elabo¬ 
rate briefs denying that the constitution was republican in form for this very reason. 

For years Congress has admitted Senators and Representatives from the States 
having the initiative and referendum, thus acknowledging that these States possess 
a republican form of government. 

Objection No. IS. —The existence of the referendum will lower the representative’s 
sense of responsibility. 

Answer. By that is meant that the representative will no longer be a ruler, but the 
people’s agent. That is as it should be. See also in our first memorial the statement 
by Hon. Le. Gage Pratt, of New Jersey. 

Objection No. 14. —To establish direct voting by the people on public questions 
will terminate the equal power of the States in the Senate. 

Answer. No, for it is to be provided that before a measure shall carry it must receive 
a majority vote in a majority of the States, as well as in a majority of the Congressional 
districts. This double majority is provided for in Switzerland, and it is a noticeable 
fact that each measure that has received the approval of a majority of the voters has 
also received their approval in a majority of the Cantons or States. 

Objection No. 15. —The representative is the representative of the whole people 
and not alone the representative of his constituents, and therefore he should not 
take instructions from his constituents. 

Answer. The conclusion is based on a fallacy. A member of the legislature and of 
Congress is elected to represent those who send him, and this is proved by the fact 
that they can and do retire whoever does not suit them. A leading example is that 
of Edmund Burke in the British House of Commons. He disobeyed instructions 
from his constituents, and they refused to return him. (The Works of Edmund 
Burke, pp. 127-170, Bell & Son’s ed.) 

Objection No. 16. —In the States where there are large cities the farmers should 
oppose the establishment of the initiative and referendum because if the system 
should be installed the farmers would be in the minority. 

Answer. As it now stands the farmers and the people in the cities are both ruled 
by the monopolists, through the machine-rule system. The farmers should help 
restore the people’s rule, for it will help themselves as well as help their fellow-men 
in the cities. 

It seems strange to hear it said in this country that the farmers should advocate the 
rule of the few, and those few the trust kings. An example of this kind of argument 
occurred in New York State by a leading grange official. He said because many 
of the farmers of New York State were opposed to the $100,000,000 expenditure for 
w dening and deepening the Erie Canal and were voted down on a referendum ballot 
throughout the State, that therefore the farmers should oppose the adoption of the 
initiative and referendum system. 

The false reasoning comes from the failure to note that the chief argument for the 
improved canal was to make a transportation line to compete with the railroads and 
thus keep down their rates. Had the initiative and referendum existed, the voters 
could have acted directly on railway rate regulation, and thus there would have been 
no need for an enlarged canal. 

The farmers are “skinned” by the trusts and other machine-rule contrivances the 
same as are the people in the towns. Both are vitally interested in terminating 
machine rule, with its corruption, special privileges, child labor, and other evils. 

Objection No. 17. —Too few people vote on public questions, as is evidenced by the 
extremely small vote on constitutional amendments. 

Answer. Those who have not voted on the public questions are the ones who have 
not studied them. They have been careless or ignorant, or both. The ones, then, 
who have decided the referendum questions are the ones who have taken an interest 
in public questions. In other words, there has been a self-disfranchisement of the 
unfit. This is as it should be. 

Furthermore, under the present system of compulsory referendum for constitutional 
amendments there usually is not a proper advertising of the proposed changes, and 
frequently the referendum ballot gives only a general description of the question at 



MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 13 


issue, and sometiiiies the question is unimportant. The small vote under these cir¬ 
cumstances is no argument against the optional referendum. Our opponent’s claim 
IS a fallacy. But as he has no case, he is obliged to argue fallaciously or admit that he 
is defeated. 

Objection No. 18. —The people are not capable of deciding intricate questions. 

Answer. Under the initiative and referendum the only power the people as a whole 
have is a veto power. They merely can reject measures, which compels the legislative 
representatives or would-be reformers to present a revised measure or acquiesce for a 
time. Should 5 per cent of the voters order that a tariff bill enacted by Congress be 
referred to the people and should the bill be rejected, it would merely send it back to 
Congress with orders to pass something better or take the consequences. Undoubtedly 
Congress would pass another bill and it would be nearer the people’s ideal. 

Now as to the results. Experience demonstrates that where the people of the 
United States have ruled it has promoted the public welfare. \Ve appeal to the 
first sixty-live years of our country’s history and to present-day results wherever 
our people are in power. Not one failure is cited by our opponents; therefore they 
have no basis for their objections. 

See also statements by Hon. Legage Pratt and Governor Burke. 

Objection No. 19. —The opportunity to retire a representative who fails to be truly 
representative is all that the people wish and need to enforce their will. 

Answer. This is one way of saying that the existing system of machine rule is satis¬ 
factory to the people. Why, then, are the people “kicking?” Why are they argu¬ 
ing for the control of the trusts? Why is President Roosevelt arguing for the reduc¬ 
tion of swollen fortunes? Evidently the people’s interests have not been cared for 
and they know that they can care for them—they can establish a direct-vote system 
for public questions. It will result in an immediate control of the trusts and eventu¬ 
ally result in the restoration of representative government. Under the existing sys¬ 
tems of government it is not possible for the people to elect a really representative 
Congress. Machine rule exists. The voters are not the ruling power. 

Objection No. 20. —Petitions will be secured too easily. 

Answer. Let our opponent consider what it will mean to get 650,000 signatures 
for a national bill. It will be a herculean task unless there is widespread cooperation. 
If experience shall demonstrate to the people at any time that a larger number of 
petitioners should be required they can vote the change. 

Objection No. 21. —The initiative and referendum involve too many elections. 

Answer. Just the reverse. Machine rule is resulting in numerous elections and long 
lists of elective officials to compel them to render an accounting. Under the initiative, 
referendum, and recall it will be easy to reduce the number of elective officials and 
lengthen the term of those who are elected. And the initiative and referendum 
questions are not being submitted at special elections except on rare occasions. 

Objection No. 22. —The people’s rule would result in radical legislation. 

Answer. When the peox)le regain their sovereignty they undoubtedly will terminate 
special privileges, but in going about it through the initiative system they will jDroceed 
more slowly than would a really radical Congress. To move the mass of voters is more 
difficult than to get a majority vote in Congress. 

Objection No. 23. —The people are too easily swayed. They are too changeable. 
They are liable to become an unreasoning mob. 

Answer. A distinction is to be made between the ancient small democracies and 
present-day democracies. In the Greek democracies all the voters congregated at a 
single meeting and were unhampered by constitutional limitations provided by a 
much larger body of voters. To-day all is changed. The United States of America 
is not peopled by the mercurial Greeks of 2,500 years ago, but principally by the 
descendants of a different nation, descendants of the Teutons, Gauls, and Celts, who 
possess a spirit of liberty and an enlightened intelligence and moral fiber which makes 
them more capable of self-government than are even the present-day Greeks and 
Romans; and, instead of the possibility of changing the fundamental law after a few 
hours’ debate, led by two or three popular orators, there is provision for public hear¬ 
ings, for taking of testimony and cross-examination of witnesses, followed by written 
debate by committees of experts; and the printed debate, together with a copy of the 
bill, is to be mailed to each voter, and then at election time, months and months after 
the issue shall have been raised, it is to be decided by the intelligence of the country. 

That is the proposed system for the United States. The Oregon system, much less 
complete, has resulted in enlightened majority rule; and the same is true in Switzer¬ 
land. The modern democratic state, instead of being changeable, is the most stable 
in the whole world. In the words of He Tocqueville during 1848, appealing to the 
French nation to establish a proper system of people’s rule: 

“The principle of the sovereignty of the people, which we enthroned in France 
but yesterday, has in America held undivided sway for over sixty years, and during 


14 MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


that period not only has the country been the most prosperous, but the most stable 
of all the nations of the earth. Whilst all the nations of the earth has been devastated 
by war or torn by civil discord, the American people alone in the civilized world 
have remained at peace. Almost all Europe was convulsed by revolutions; America 
has not had even a revolt.” (Author’s advertisement to tlie twelfth edition.) 

The same has been true in Switzerland. In the words of Prof. A. Lawrence Lowell, 
of Harvard University, in the concluding paragraph of a tw^o-volume work entitled 
‘‘Governments and Parties in Continental Europe:” 

“The people of Switzerland are contented. The Government is patriotic, far¬ 
sighted, efficient, and economical, steady in its policy, not changing its course with 
party fluctuations. Corruption in public life is almost unknown, and appointments 
to office are not made for political purposes by the Federal authorities, or by those 
of most of the Cantons. Officials are selected on their merits, and retained as long 
as they can do their work; and yet the evils of a bureaucracy scarcely exists. * * * 

Wealth is comparatively evenly distributed.” 

These are the I’esults of the people’s rule. They demonstrate that the people’s 
rule is conservatively progressive. Our opponents admit it, for they do not attack 
what the people’s rule has accomplished. 

Objection No. 24 .—The people will make mistakes. 

Answer. This is another theory. No specific instances of mistakes through the 
use of the initiative and referendum are given. The initiative and referendum sys¬ 
tem is such that the people understand the questions at issue and are conservative. 
They prefer to stick to existing conditions until they clearly see that the proposed 
change will be beneficial. No instance is quoted where a measure adopted under 
the optional referendum or direct initiative has been repealed. If mistakes were 
being made the laws would be repealed. This nonrepeal of measures adopted through 
the initiative and referendum is conclusive proof that the people have not made mis¬ 
takes. They have advanced slowly, but surely. 

It can not reasonably be argued that mistakes have been made because they have 
not advanced more rapidly. “Mistakes” has a different meaning. To say that the 
people have made a mistake is equivalent to saying that they have gone wrong, not 
that they haven’t gone faster. 

Objection No. 25 .—Laws would be poorly drawn. 

Answer. That again is a mere theory. Experience has demonstrated otherwise. 
Bills are drafted by those who wish the measure to succeed, and not by corporation 
lawyers who aim to defeat them. Each measure is clear and unequivocal, for there is 
no attempt to insert something which the Supreme Court can use as a basis to declare 
the law unconstitutional. 

Objection No. 26 .—Should 5 per cent of the voters of the nation be empowered to 
bring to a vote of the people such questions as the^may wish to propose it w^ould keep 
the country in a turmoil. 

Answer. At first there -would be quite a few bills and proposed amendments, for the 
few have ruled for nearly seventy-five years and are in power in Congress. But after 
a time .Congress will represent the people and few if any initiative measures will be 
voted upon. For example, in Switzerland where the initiative was installed in 
federal affairs in 1891 three initiative measures were soon voted upon, one in 1893 
and two the next year, since which time, namely, thirteen years, not another initiative 
measure has been presented. In the United States the same general result will 
doubtless occur except as individual initiative is greater among us. Whenever a 
group of progressive American citizens believe that a change in the laws will promote 
the public welfare they should be at liberty to bring the question squarely before 
their countrj'men if they can secure 050,000 signatures. That is right. There shopld 
be an opportunity for individual initiative in public affairs the same as in private 
corporations. For the developing altruism of the age there should be provided a 
system through which it can appeal direct to the people. 

Objection No. 27 .—The majority should not be permitted to amend the constitution, 
for then the minority would no longer be protected. This was the argument in the 
Michigan constitutional convention. 

Answer. The question is. Shall the majority or the minority rule? The answer is 
clearly demonstrated in our country’s history. The people have prospered most under 
majority rule. In Jefferson’s day the people’s rule resulted in the termination of legal 
privileges, and to-day the restoration of the people’s rule will likewise terminate legal 
privileges. 

pt'. In Michigan the votes of eleven Senators can prevent the submission of a constitu¬ 
tional amendment. Is that right? Or should the people rule? 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


15 


people’s rule benefits all classes. 

The monopolists who really believe that they will be better off under a continuation 
of the existing rule of the few are mistaken. They fail to grasp the fact that the 
reestablishment of the people’s rule in this country will tremendously benefit every¬ 
one, just as the improvements in electrical appliances are benefiting everyone. The 
people’s rule will iniprove the social conditions, and everyone will share therein. The 
monopolists especially will be benefited, for they have accumulated fortunes, and 
what they most need is a stable government. This they can not hope for under the 
continued rule of the few. 


Appendix VIII. 

BRIEF FOR DEBATE. 

[References in the following are to the foregoing pages.] 

AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENT. 

The people of the United States should install the initiative and referendum, 
because— 

1. It will restore their sovereignty and reestablish representative government. 

(For details, see p.-.) 

2. The initiative and optional referendum in combination with Congress is a thor¬ 
oughly practicable system, as is evidenced by— 

(а) The successful use of a similar system in Federal and State affairs in Switzerland; 
also in Oregon. 

(б) The people of the United States are in the habit of voting upon national ques¬ 
tions by voting for candidates who are pledged to vote for certain measures. The 
adoption of the initiative and referendum will merely enable the voters to separate 
the more important questions from that of the election of candidates, and separate the 
issues themselves; afterwards the exact truth concerning these important questions 
will be gotten to the intelligent voters and on election day they will rule (p. —). Thus 
real popular government, and of high grade, can lie restored. The sham will be 
discarded. 

3. Final power in the‘voters of the nation will promote the public welfare, as is 
evidenced by— 

(a) The results of the people’s rule during the first sixty years of our nation’s history. 

(b) The results in Oregon, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. 

(c) The known attitude of the voters of our land toward the questions pf the day. 

(d) The results in federal affairs in Switzerland, where private monopolies have been 
terminated and in other ways the people care for their interests. 

4. The world’s trend is toward more and more power in the jieople, thereby pro¬ 
moting the welfare of the race. In the United States, where for sixty-five years the 
people were the ruling power, they have restored their sovereignty in several States, 
and evidently in other States and nationally the movement is progressing, and as the 
world is moving in that direction it will succeed. 

5. The line of least resistance for establishing the initiative and referendum in 
Federal affairs is to work for the establishment of a statute for the advisory initiative 
for a few of the more pressing questions, and after that is in use there can be submitted 
through it a constitutional amendment for the full initiative and referendum. 

CONCLUSION. 

Review with us the arguments: We have shown that to establish the initiative and 
optional referendum in national affairs is practicable, and that to do so will restore the 
people’s sovereignty and reestablish representative government, and thereby promote 
the public welfare. Furthermore, the trend in this country is against machine rule and 
for the people’s rule. 

These points are not disproved by our opponents. You know that the initiative 
and optional referendum are a success in Oregon and Switzerland, and that the people 
of the United States are in the habit of voting upon national questions by voting for 
candidates. The only change on election day will be to hand to the voters a ballot on 
which are six or eight printed questions and for each question the voters’ duty will 
be to place a cross opposite the word “Yes” or “No.” But the ignorant and careless 
will fail to mark their ballots, thereby automatically disfranchising themselves. 



16 MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


These are facts, worthy judges, which our opponents have not disproved and we 
therefore claim the verdict. The people of the United States should establish the 
initiative and referendum. It can come gradually, as is proposed in the nonpartisan 
programme. 


Appendix IX. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. 

t 

Our programme, in a word, is the restoration of the people’s rule—self-government. 
Majority rule. That is the paramount issue. We, the people, demand the reestab¬ 
lishment of our own sovereignty in place of machine rule. Trustocracy must give 
place to republicanism and democracy. The system of government that is outside 
the Constitution and which maintains itself through fraud and corruption must give 
way to the people’s rule. 

To accomplish this the programme is to restore, in connection with Congress, a 
system whereby the voters can ballot direct on public questions, the will of the majority 
to be an instruction to the elected representatives, who will be pledged to obey. This 
will do much to restore representative government. Then the advisory initiative 
and advisory referendum will be exchanged for the initiative and referendum; and 
proportional representation will doubtless be installed in the National House. 

IDT The people’s rule in this country is not an untried system, for it existed prior to the 
rise of the convention system, some seventy-five years ago, as has been pointed out. 

QUICKEST POSSIBLE RELIEF. 

^ Furthermore, the nonpartisan programme furnishes the quickest possible relief. 
If successful in the coming campaign the advisory initiative and referendum principle 
will be established at the opening of next Congress, which will be during the spring 
of next year if the President will summon it. Then the initiative measures submitted 
by the people can be filed with the Secretary of State and by him transmitted to 
Congress, where public hearings can be had and competing measures framed, and 
both sides submitted to the sovereign people. 

We close with the following excellent advice by the author of democracy in Europe, 
Sir Thomas Erskine May, K. C. B., D. C. L.: 

“This constant development of popular influence, as the result of the intellectual 
and material progress of nations must, therefore, be accepted as a natural law. 

“Such a law, like other laws which shape the destinies of man, is to be reverently 
studied and accepted without prejudice as a beneficent influence designed for the 
general benefit of society. Let us not be too prone to condemn, or to dread it, as a 
social danger. Rather let us learn to interpret it rightly and to apply it with careful 
discernment to the government of free States. If it be a law that the progressive 
civilization of a nation increases the power of the people, let that power be welcomed 
and gradually associated with the State. The same cause which creates the power 
also qualifies the people to exercise it. In a country half civilized, popular power is 
wielded by a mob; in a civilized community, it is exercised by the legitimate agencies 
of freedom—by the press, by public discussion, by association, and by electoral con¬ 
tests. If ignored, distrusted, defied, or resisted by rulers, it provokes popular dis¬ 
contents, disorders, and revolution; if welcomed and propitiated, it is a source of 
strength and national union. To discern rightly the progress of society, and to meet 
its legitimate claims to political influence, has become one of the highest functions of 
modem statesmanship ” (pp, xxix-xxx). 


Appendix X. 

MAJORITY RULE; OR THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. 

[An address delivered in Valley City, N. Dak., January 13, 1908, by Hon. L. A. Ueland, member of 
the North Dakota legislature and author of the constitutional amendment for the initiative and 
referendum for his State.] 

THE DIRECT-LEGISLATION ISSUE IN NORTH DAKOTA. 

A bill for the amendment of the constitution providing for the initiative and referen¬ 
dum was passed by the last legislative assembly of North Dakota. Under the regula¬ 
tions of our constitution this amendment must also be passed by the coming legis¬ 
lative assembly and then submitted to the voters at the following election. 




MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAJUE. 


17 


WHAT IS THE INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM, AND DIRECT LEGISLATION? 

The initiative is a provision by which a portion of the voters, usually 8 per cent, 
can propose a law or an amendnient to the constitution and have it submitted to the 
voters at the polls for adoption or rejection. 

The referendum is a provision by which a portion, usually 5 per cent, of the voters 
can deniand that a law passed by the legislature shall be submitted to the voters at 
an election for their approvvil or rejection, a majority to decide. 

The initiative and referendum together are called direct legislation, because through 
them legislation can be secured direct without having to resort to representatives. 

After the adoption of Lie initiative and referendum, it a bill is passed by the legis¬ 
lative assembly that there is much objection to the people can circulate petitions 
against it, and if they secure signatures to the number of 5 per cent of the voters 
the bill in cpiestion will be submitted to all the voters of the State at the following 
election. If a majority then votes in favor of the law it will go into effect, but if a 
majority votes against, the bill will thereliy be vetr,ed and become void. This is 
the referendum. 

The initiative is for proposing new laws. If a respectable number of voters agree 
to try to get a law passed, they can draw tlie law as they desire it and then circulate 
petitions in its favor. When they have secured the signatures of 8 per cent of 
the voters the bill and petitions are sent to the secretary of state. He in turn lays 
the bill before the legislative assembly and if it refuses to enact it into a law the bill 
then goes before the people at the next general electron. At the same time that the 
secretary of state sends out a copy of the bill for the information of the voters, argu¬ 
ments furnished by the supporters and opponents of the bill, and paid for by them, 
are sent along. If a majority votes in favor of the bill, it becomes valid law.' Under 
tne North Dakota amendment the legislature can submit another bill on the same 
suliject at the same time, in which case the people have a choice of two bills, and 
may adopt either or neither. 

This last provision is the essential difference lietween the North Dakota amendnient 
and the Oregon amendment, as in Oregon the initiated bill goes directly to the people, 
the legislature having nothing whatever to do with it. 

ONLY THEORETICALLY PEOPLE RULE NOW. 

The Declaration of Independence says that governments derive their just powers 
from the consent of the governed. Our State constitution declares that all political 
power is inherent in the people. In every campaign appeal is made to the people to 
decide on platforms and candidates. All State constitutions are referred direct to the 
voters for approval or rejection. In short, the accepted and fundamental principle 
of our political institutionis that the people rule. In theory the people rule now, but 
under a purely representative system it is impossible to carry this theory out fully 
in practice. 

Under a representative system platforms are adopted to guide the voters in deter¬ 
mining their choice of principles. But no platform contains only one question. Sev¬ 
eral important issues are generally involved in national and State campaigns, and 
the voters’ choice consists only in selecting c)ne out of two or more groups of resolutions, 
some of which he may approve and others disapprove. The man who in 1896 believed 
in revision of the tariff but was opposed to the free coinage of silver would have to 
vote against his principles on one or the other of these questions. So, too, would the 
man who lived in New York and favored both the reduction of the tariff and the free 
coinage of silver, but compelled to vote for the Tammany legislative candidates, no 
matter how corrupt he might know them to be, if his vote should be consistent on 
national issues. Bear in mind also that a large number of questions that come up 
for action before legislatures and Congress have never been touched on in platforms nor 
had any public discussion even, and it is easy to see that under our present system the 
will of a majority of the people does not necessarily govern. It is not known. No one 
knows how many favor high or low tariff, free lumber or high duty on it; how many sup¬ 
port the present policy of the United States toward the Philippines, or what proportion 
of the voters support Federal or State regulation of corporations. It can never be known 
until each question is submitted by itself, singly and alone, stripped of all side issues 
and in such a manner that it will not affect the success of individual candidates or a 
political party. This opportunity an initiative and referendum gives, and after its 
adoption the will of the majority will govern not only in theory but in fact. 

Under the initiative and referendum you select what you want as you do the dishes 
from a bill of fare in a first-class restaurant Now you not only have some one else 
select the dishes for you, but you are compellefl to eat them, onions, crow, and all. 

S. Doc. 529, 60-1--2 


18 MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM THE MISSING LINK TO MAJORITY RULE. 

If we compare a deliberative assembly with a State, we will find that- they have 
much in common. In the former all members have equal rights. As in a State, they 
find it necessary to adopt rules for the conduct of business and elect officers. They 
even select representatives that are suitable for certain work, put them on a committee, 
and provide special facilities for them so they can properly perform their duty. It is 
recognized that a report from such a committee is entitled to weight and usually it is 
adopted. But no one would ever think of giving the committee the absolute power to 
have its report adopted without the consent of the assembly. Nor does the fact that a 
committee is appointed on a given subject prevent the members from offering motions 
and resolutions on the same subject. But both of these inconsistencies are now prac¬ 
ticed in a State under a purely representative system. The initiative and referendum 
would correct this practice and have us act as consistently in a State as we now do in a 
deliberative assembly. 

It may be that one or two hundred years ago a purely representative system was the 
best that could be devised. With wagon roads none too good, no railroads, telegraph, 
or telephones, and mail service undeveloped, it would have been slow and cumber¬ 
some to ascertain the will of the whole people. But these conditions have changed 
entirely now, and even in those early times, there were those who saw the defects of 
the purely representative system, and proposed direct legislation as a remedy. In 
1850 Martin Rittinghausen, a German by birth and education, wrote a series of articles 
in Paris on direct legislation, which created quite a stir. But no serious attempts were 
made to put it into practice except in Switzerland. In that country some of the small 
forest Cantons had a crude system of referendum, and through the efforts of Ritting¬ 
hausen and others this system was gradually improved and extended to other and 
larger Cantons until finally the Swiss Federation itself adopted the complete initiative 
and referendum. 

In regard to results there is hardly any difference of opinion. All disinterested 
observers practically agree that Switzerland is now a model Republic. 

RESULTS IN SWITZERLAND. 

Hon. Numa Droz, ex-President of the Swiss Republic, and author, says: “Under the 
influence of the referendum a profound change has come over the spirit both of Parlia¬ 
ment and people. The idea of employer and employed, sender and sent, which lies at 
the root of the representative system, becomes an absolute reality. * * * The 
people have generally shown themselves wiser than the meddling politicians, who 
have tried to draw them into systematic opposition. They have more than once given 
the agitator to understand that he had no chance with them. The net result has been 
a great tranquilizing of public life. MTien the ballot has pronounced, everybody 
accepts the results. Those who make the most noise can not impose on the people as 
they do in other countries; they are taken for what they are worth.” 

Prof. Charles Borgeaud, of tlie University of Geneva, writes: “The referendum has 
won its case. Unquestionably is has proven a boon to Switzerland, and has no more 
enemies of any following in the generation of to-day. * * * Now, why is that insti¬ 
tution so popular in Switzerland that no one would dream of proposing that we should 
do away with it and go back to the purely representative system of 1848? Because it 
has proven an efficacious remedy, meeting in a large measure the evils which may be 
consequent upon that form of government.” 

Hon. Karl Burkly, Counselor of Zurich, says; “The smooth working of our federal, 
cantonal and municipal referendum is, as a matter of fact, a truth generally acknowl¬ 
edged throughout Switzerland. The initiative and referendum are now deeply 
rooted in the hearts of the Swiss people. * * * So all is well with us, and you may 
authoritatively say that there is no agitation for its repeal or difficulty in its working, 
whether in Federation or in the Cantons or in the cities. Our Swiss political trinity— 
initiative, referendum and proportional representational—is not only good and holy 
for hard-working Switzerland, but would be even better, I think, too, for the grand 
country in North America.” 

Sir Francis Adams, British minister to Berne, Switzerland, gives this testimony; 
“The referendum has struck root and expanded wherever it has been introduced, and 
no serious politician of any party would now think of attempting its abolishment. 
The conservatives, who violently opposed its introduction, became its earnest sup¬ 
porters when they found that it undoubtedly acted as a drag upon hasty and radical 
lawmaking.” 




MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 19 


DIRECT LEGISLATIVE MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. 

The initiative and referendum was mentioned very little in the United States before 
1892. From that time the discussion of these principles was taken up and they have 
been gaining more and more support ever since. South Dakota was the first State to 
adopt this measure, the amendment being carried at the polls in 1898 by 23,000 to 
16,000. Other States followed, and in 1902 the referendum amendment was adopted 
in Oregon by a vote of 62,024 to 5,668, or nearly 11 to 1. This amendment was more 
carefully drawn than any that had been introduced previously and has since been 
looked on as a model by the advocates of direct legislation and largely copied for 
introduction in other States. Thus the North Dakota amendment is almost an exact 
copy of the Oregon ainendment and the same is true of the amendment that was 
adopted by the last legislature of Missouri, and also the clause in the Oklahoma con¬ 
stitution providing for the initiative and referendum. 

As far as the initiative and referendum have been tried in the United States, the 
results have been very satisfactory, possibly more pronounced than in Switzerland. 

Ex-Governor Charles N. Herreid of South Dakota, says: “Since the referendum has 
been a part of our constitution, we have had no charterniongers or railroad speculators, 
no wildcat schemes submitted to our legislatures. Formerly our time was occupied by 
speculative schemes of one kind and another, but since the referendum has been a. 
])art of our constitution, these people do not press their schemes on the legislature, and 
hence there is no necessity for having recourse to the referendum.” 

Ex-Judge of the Supreme Court R. P. Boise writes from Salem, Orcg.: “This 
initiative and referendum amendment was adopted some four years a 2 :o, and several 
laws have been enacted under it which could not be passed by*the legislative assem¬ 
bly, for the reason that such laws are not wanted by political bosses and corporations 
whose selfish interests are liable to be restrained or regulated by them. This amend¬ 
ment is doing good service in this State in revStraining jobbing, carelessness, and 
extravagance in legislation. It has greatly abridged the influence of the lobby and 
the power of corporations and persons seeking special privileges and monopolies 
through laws enacted by the legislature, and has brought the influence of the whole 
people to more prominence in the direction of public affairs.” 

Hon. Thomas A. McBride, circuit judge, fifth judicial district, Oregon, says; “Our 
initiative and referendum amendment has proven highly satisfactory in practice, 
and the opposition shown when it was before the people for adoption has entirely dis¬ 
appeared. * * * It has proven an effectual check on any disposition to legis¬ 

lative extravagance, and yet has been exercised very conservatively when any legiti¬ 
mate expenditure has been referred to the people.” 

The Springfield, Mass., Republican prints a letter from Republican United States 
Senator Jonathan Bourne, of Oregon, as follows: “ Replying to your inquiry as to the 
present sentiment in Oregon regarding her direct legislation system, I feel fully justi¬ 
fied in stating specifically that the same is more popular than ever and that no com¬ 
bination of circumstances or individuals can coerce or befool the people to assenting 
to or permitting any repeal or limitation of its power. In my humble opinion, Ore¬ 
gon’s direct legislative system is the safest and most conservative plan of government 
ever invented. There is no possibility of any sudden overturn of policies and prin¬ 
ciples by change of parties in office—no great change can be made without the consent 
of a majority voting on that particular question separate from all others. I am con¬ 
fident that a majority can never be had for a measure without there is good reason u 
believe it will advance the general welfare. 

“The great majority of American people are honest, intelligent, and just; agita¬ 
tion and full discussion must inevitably result in their giving a wise decision. Should 
a mistake be made through a lack of agitation and discussion, it can be quickly reme¬ 
died by this system by again referring directly to the people. There is no occasion 
to wait for a change of administration or a change of party majorities in the State 
senate or house. This system places direct responsibility on each individual voter 
for the law under which he lives. 

“The initiative especially makes available all statesmanship there is among the 
people. Any man or group of men having a good idea can enlist for one or more 
campaigns and get it before the people for approval or rejection. No boss or political 
machine nor corrupt legislator can prevent a fair hearing and decision by the supreme 
power, the sovereign people. No man afraid to trust the people should be trusted by 
the people.” 

In the Pacific Monthly for May, Lute Pease writes: “Oregon complacently con¬ 
fronts the pessimists of the republic with startling statements somewhat as follows: 
^ If our representatives do not represent us, we have power to force them to do so. We 
can reject any law that we don’t want, or ourselves enact any law that we do want. 


20 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


“ ‘ V'e have knocked out boss and machine. AVe have just elected two United States 
-Senators in twenty minutes, ■without boodle or booze or even a cigar, and our legislature 
has just completed a session of extraordinary activity, untainted by any charge of 
corruption. All of which, it may be acknowledged, indicates a condition of political 
well being that justifies felicitation.” 

REFERENDUM THE REMEDY AGAINST CORRUPTION. 

As already indicated the referendum will do away with bribery and corruption 
among legislative bodies. This is a great evil under present conditions, and laws and 
ordinances passed by unfair means are as good before a court as others. Not all leg¬ 
islative members are dishonest. But suppose one-third of the members of a legislative 
body are absolutely honest and competent, another third may be and frequently is 
com.posed of the supporters of certain special interests, be they railroad, street car, 
liquor, general corporation interests, or others. V hen these special interests want a 
law or an ordinance passed or to p>revent one from being passed they do not have ta 
buy or bribe their owui friends; the first-named members they can not get; so they 
put in their work among the remaining third, composed largely of inexperienced men 
that are not on record for any particular position. Only a small portion of these are 
needed, and they are gathered in by the lobby through such means as wdll bring the 
desired results, from playing on their vanities to the vulgar cash bribe. The remedy 
usually proposed is to vote for honest men. But this advice has been given as long 
as there has been representative government and, without doubt, there is more corrup¬ 
tion among legislative bodies now than ever before. The advice can not be follow^ed, 
and the remedy has no practical value. 

But if all laws could be referred to the people, bribery, corruption and graft would 
cease among legislative bodies. No individual or corporations wmuld spend their 
money and time in working through a measure against the interests^ of the people 
when they knew that the people themselves could prevent it from going into effect; 
and for the same reason no lobbies would be employed to influence legislation by 
unfair or corrupt means. The members would then become unhampered and free to 
exercise their own judgment, not only because corrupt influences w^ould not interfere 
with their action, but also because wUen this condition was generally known the 
motives of the representatives would not be questioned, as they are apt to be under 
present conditions, no matter how honest or sincere they may be. 

Some have the impression that there is a remedy now, against getting and keeping 
bad laws, by choosing different representatives from those that have gone wHong. 
Neither does this work out in practice. In the first place, the new representatives, 
w’hile not repeating the same offense, may do something else just as bad. In the sec¬ 
ond place, too often nothing can be gained by repealing the law' that has been enacted 
against the people’s wish when it finally can be reached. If a law is passed granting 
a franchise with exceptionably favorable conditions to a corporation, the corporation 
will accept the franchise and commence operations under it, after which it will remain 
in force for the time it was granted, even if the law that created it is repealed. So 
too in case of extravagant appropriations and similar cases, the mischief will be done 
before any repeal can reach them. The referendum locks the door before the horse 
is stolen, while now, at best, it is only locked afterwards. 

PREVENTS BOSS RULE. 

There is much agitation against boss rule, machine rule, and gang rule. It is felt 
and charged that political bosses, through the power they have acquired over political 
machines, can and do dictate nominations of certain men and force through legis¬ 
lation that the majority of the people do not want. Sometimes the resentment against 
these conditions reaches such a pitch that the voters resort to independent political 
action or put a minority party in power to rid themselves from this misrule. But 
this is only a temporary relief. The conditions otherwise remaining the same, it is 
only a question of time when either the same boss regains his lost power or another 
in his place performs the same acts, and soon a new gang becomes as obnoxious as the 
old one ever was. 

If the people had the power to propose laws through the initiative and prevent 
the passage of laws that they do not want by the use of the referendum, no politicaI| 
boss could dictate the laws, and his power in that direction, at least, would be entirely 
destroyed. 

ENCOURAGES PROPER LEADERSHIP. 

But, say some, there will always be leaders. True. But we need leaders in thought, 
leaders in progress, unselfish leaders that are willing to work for the good of humanity, 
more than we need leaders that can only manipulate nominations and .elections. 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


21 


Under present conditions the latter have too much of a monopoly of leadership and 
frequently mislead because their mind is more centered on winning and retaining 
their power than on the promotion of what is to the best interest of mankind. The 
former kind of leaders are now usually pushed into the background, sometimes because 
they are not practical politicians, at other times because they become disgusted when 
they find out how the game is played and drop out from active participation. 

INITIATIVE MEANS TO PROGRESS. 

The initiative gives an opportunity to all who have anything of merit, to get it 
before the public for fair consideration. Teachers, professors, attorneys, lecturers, 
ministers, and others would then become active factors in improving and shaping 
our political institutions. The people would then get the full benefit of the wisdom 
and experience of their best minds. Now the influence of this class is almost lost, 
as it is impracticable for the greater part of them to take active part in politics, and, 
without doin^ so, their influence on political questions count for little now. 

Tlie initiative gives particularly an opportunity for progress and normal growth. 
No State or nation can maintain its efticiency and usefulness to its citizens that do 
not allow improvements freely to be made in the political field so it will conform to 
the changes that is constantly going on in other directions. One hundred years ago 
there were no millionaires, no labor unions, no railroads, telegraph or telephones, 
and no corporation or trust question, ('hecks and drafts were hardly in use, the terms 
“graft” and “government by injunction” were not yet invented, slavery was still 
flourishing and prohibition untried. Laws that would be suitable to deal out justice 
then would be inadequate now. As great or even greater changes may be expected in 
the future as in the immediate past, and the initiative would furnish the practical 
means by which we can keep pace with them in the political field. 

Our revolutionary forefathers put this nation in a position far in advance of most 
others at that time. But the Constitution that was then adopted has hardly been 
changed since, while other nations have gradually been creeping up alongside of us 
and may eventually pass us if we remain stationary. Probably nine-tenths of the 
people desire that the United States Constitution shall be changed so the Senators 
can be elected by a direct vote of the people, but the difficulty of getting through an 
amendment is so great that it has been impossible to get even this popular change 
made. 

now SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE AMENDED. 

That this great difficulty to amend the Constitution is an evil is now frequently 
admitted, and it has been seriously advocated that as an offset the courts should make 
such interpretations of the Constitution that it will fit modern conditions. Virtually 
this would mean that the courts could make additions to it. It would mean that if 
the Constitution was silent on any given question the judges could so interpret it that 
it would sanction a policy along the line favored by them. Thus, if the Constitution 
is not clear in defining State and national powers over corporations, the court could 
decide, if it thought such a course wise, that we should only have Federal regulation 
of corporations. If this power was given to the court it could not only usurp the 
legislative power and encroach on the power of the executive, but thwart the popular 
will and make self-government a farce. Under the most favorable conditions when 
the judges were able and honest, there would still be the objection that the decisions 
would establish policies regardless of whether a majority of the people approved them 
or not. But human nature is much the same among people of different professions, 
and where anyone has power over his fellows for which he is not accountable, it is 
liable to be abused. This is true of czars, kings, and slave drivers, and judges would 
prove no exception if they should assume the authority to build up a constitution by 
their decisions. 

Under a popular form of government the orderly and common-sense way of improving 
and making needed changes in constitutions and important laws is to adopt an easy 
and simple method to get the expression of the people’s will after reasonable delibera¬ 
tions. This is offered bv the initiative and referendum. The initiative as the pro¬ 
gressive part of direct legislation offers opportunity to the advance guard, the pushers, 
the thinkers, and idealists, to attempt leadership in constructive work, and spurs them 
on to their best efforts, the referendum as the conservative part always holding them 
back and preventing them from going faster than a majority of the people will follow. 


DISREGARD FOR LAW. 

There is at present considerable disregard for law. It is charged on the one hand 
that corporations and trusts manipulate elections and influence legislation in their 
favor, and on the other that anticorporation laws are often pushed through by dema- 


22 MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


gogues or in a spirit of revenge. It is known that in some cases lobbies are employed 
and bribery resorted to, and it is taken for granted that much more of the same kind 
of work is done that is not known. Having no respect for the source oh the law, the 
laws themselves are disrespected. But let some of the laws be approved by a majority 
of the people and offer the same opportunity for all laws, and they will be respected. 
Nothing could give them as much force, prestige, and weight as the knowledge that 
a majority of the whole people were actually behind them, and all laws and constitu¬ 
tional amendments passed by the initiative and referendum would also have their 
meaning impressed on the consciousness of the people to a far greater degree and in a 
much more emphatic manner than is possible now. 

REFERENDUM PRINCIPLE FAIR. 

There is something so eminently fair in referring questions to the whole people and 
have them decide, as the jury does cases in court, that it appeals to a man’s sense of 
justice. One instinctively feels that this much he is entitled to, and that no one has any 
right to ask for more. It puts into political practice the golden rule, to do to others 
as we wish to be done by. 

People whose interests differ in many respects have, therefore, readily reached 
common ground in direct legislation. The Farmers’ Alliance and Grange, the Fed¬ 
eration of Labor and other labor unions, single taxers, prohibitionists, woman suf¬ 
fragists, and other reformers have repeatedly indorsed its principles. A large number 
of professors in colleges and universities of the United States favor it. Active political 
reformers such as Governor Johnson of Minnesota, Senator La Follette of Wisconsin, 
and Governor Folk of Missouri support it. So do 140 members of the last Congress, 
and if we are in need of more conservative authority we can get it from members of 
the United States Supreme Court. Associate Justice David Brewer said at a banquet 
in New A^ork in November: 

“The more constant and universal the voice of the people the nearer the approach 
to an ideal government. Initiative and referendum make public opinion the quality 
controlling. The more promptly and more fully public officers carry into effect such 
public opinion the more truly is government of and-by the people realized.” 

ATTITUDE OF SOME OF THE MINISTERS. 

Bev. H. S. Bigelow, pastor of the Vine Street Congregational Church, of Cincinnati, 
Ohio, wrote last summer to the New A'ork Independent: 

“My people consent to my leaving the church for a time, perhaps for two or three 
years, that my efforts may be exerted directly for this initiative and referendum 
measure in Ohio. If adopted we shall no longer have to wade through the mire of 
politics to get reform. Over the heads of the politicians in conventions and legisla¬ 
tures and councils we may make our appeal to the people direct. The corporations 
can not fight us in the secrecies of the lobby. They will have to come out in the open 
and meet us, not with bribes for lawmakers, but with arguments to the people. Every 
campaign will then have a distinct educational value, and we shall get progress as 
fast as the people want it. , 

“As things are now the reformer is under a serious handicap. We are living under 
minority rule. So many are the obstacles that no important change is made until 
not only a majority, but an overwhelming majority, favor it. It takes a torrent of 
public sentiment to break down the barriers with which corporations are able to resist 
reforms long after they have become popular. I do not leave my church to go into 
politics, I am leaving it to put an end to the necessity for the very disagreeable 
kind of politics which we now have,” 

In a circular letter addressed to the ministers and Christian people of California, 
a committee composed of pastors and laymen say, in part: “Civic reforms and revival 
of practical righteousness can not be secured by individual effort alone, without 
regard to environment and practical means of working. Our duty and responsibility 
as voters also requires us to secure a simple method by which Christian influence 
can be made most effective in promoting the public welfare. The best method yet 
proposed for nonpartisan political action is direct legislation. Will you not kindly 
aid this forward movement in the interest of morality? Delay is dangerous in this 
case.” 

This circular was signed by Thomas J. Conaty, Bishop of Monterey and Los Angeles; 
Geo. A. Gates, president of Pomona College; William Horace Day, pastor First Con¬ 
gregational Church; Robert McIntyre, pastor First Methodist Church; Hugh K. Wal¬ 
ker, pastor Immanuel Presbyterian Church; Charles C. Pierce, pastor Memorial 
Baptist Church; A. C. Smither, pastor First Christian Church; W. W. Logan, pastor 
First United Presbyterian Church; Jarret E. Edwads, pastor Stevens African M. E. 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 23 


Churclij'^Herbert J. Weaver, pastor English Lutheran Church; E. P. Ryland, pastor 
Trinity M. E. Church South; C. C. Willett, pastor Orchard Avenue Baptist Church; 
A. W. Adkinson, presiding elder Methodist Episcopal Church. 

In the East the general conference of the Episcopal Church devoted half a day’s 
session a couple of years ago to papers and addresses showing that the referendum is 
a moral issue. 

GIVES RESULTS WITHOUT BEING USED. 

One peculiarity of the initiative and referendum is that it will accomplish the 
object for which it is adopted without the people having to make use of it to any 
great extent. For if the legislators know that the people can vote on any law they 
will be very careful in enacting them; and, on the other hand, if they know there are 
some means to get any question of merit before the people,, the legislators will not be 
apt to go out of their way to hinder the enactment of good laws or the proposing of 
needed constitutional amendments. 

OBJECTIONS CLASSIFIED. 

Let us now consider some of the objections that have been made. Some of them are 
made by those who distrust the people find who really are not in sympathy with the 
spirit of our republican institutions. Other objections are offered from a purely 
conservative standpoint. That is, the opposition is largely against change of any kind. 
We need not go to China for examples to show that people have been slow to change 
from oppressive, unjust, or impractical political methods to better ones. When we look 
back through history and see with what tenacity people have hugged their delusions, 
how hundreds of thousands have sacrificed their lives to save the worthless head of a 
tyrant; how hard a fight was put up to retain the institutions of slavery, and similar 
incidents, we may well grow suspicious that we have not entirely outgrown this 
habit of giving such undue reverence to what we have become accustomed to, that 
we can not see its defects. We are all more or less inclined to endure what we have, 
too, rather than take the trouble of changing, even when we see that improvements 
could be made. Sam Walter Foss shows this up in “The Crooked Calf Path.” It 
reads: 

One day, through the primeval wood, 

A calf walked home, as good calves should; 

But made a trail all bent askew, 

A crooked trail as all calves do. 

Since then two hundred years have fled. 

And, I infer, the calf is dead. 

But still he left behind, his trail, 

* And thereby hangs my moral tale. 

The trail was taken up next day 
By a lone dog that passed that way; 

And then a wise bell-wether sheep 
Pursued the trail o’er vale and steep. 

And drew the flock behind him, too, 

As good bell-wethers always do. 

And from that day o’er hiil and glade 
Through those old woods a path was made. 

And many men wound in and out. 

And dodged and turned, and bent about. 

And uttered words of righteous wrath. 

Because ’twas such a crooked path. 

But still they followed—do not laugh— 

The first migrations of that calf, 

And through this winding wood way stalked. 

Because he wabbled when he walked. 

This forest path became a lane. 

That bent and turned, and turned again; 

This crooked lane became a road, 

Mdiere many a poor horse with his load 
Toiled on beneath the burning sun, 

, And traveled some three miles in one. 

And thus a century and a half 
They trod in the footsteps of that calf. 


24 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


The years passed on in swiftness fleet, 

The road ])ecame a village street; 

And this, before men were aware, 

A city’s crowded thoroughfare; 

And soon the central street was this 
Of a renowned metropolis. 

And men two centuries and a half 
Trod in the footsteps of that calf. 

Each day a hundred thousand rout 
Followed the zigzag calf about; 

And o’er his crooked journey went 
The traffic of a continent. 

A hundred thousand men were led 
By one calf near three centuries dead. 

They followed still his crooked way, 

And lost one hundred years a day. 

For such reverence is lent 
To well-established precedent. 

A moral lesson this might teach, 

Were I ordained and called to preach; 

For men are prone to go it blind 
Along the calf paths of the mind. 

And work away from sun to sun 
To do what other men have done. 

They follow in the beaten track. 

And out, and in, and forth, and back, 

And still their devious course pursue. 

To keep the path that others do. 

But how the wise old wood gods, laugh 
Who saw the first primevial calf. 

Ah! many things this tale might teach, 

But I am not ordained to preach. 

The objections may be divided in two classes: General objections to the principles, 
and specific objections to the details through which these principles are to be put 
into operation. Objections of the first class are hard to make in a republic. 

STANDARDS OF REPRESENTATIVES MIGHT BE LOWERED. 

One of the objections raised is that representatives would have less responsibility 
under direct legislation, which would tend to lower their standard. It has not worked 
so in other cases. It has raised the standard of rulers to take the absolutism of their 
power away from them, and the standard of members of constitutional conventions, 
who have their work passed on by the people, is not below, but rather above, legisla¬ 
tive members. There is the serious objection to present methods, however, that 
representatives have been given so much authority that they are being spoiled. Many 
of them have become arrogant, while a large portion of the people have lost interest 
in public affairs because they feel that they can do little and that nothing is expected 
of them. If a check is put on the representatives and a stimulant given to the people, 
the result will be of mutual advantage to all. 

PEOPLE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH. 

Another objection is that the people are not intelligent enough. This same objec¬ 
tion has been offered at every stage of advance made against absolutism and it is not 
surprising that it should be repeated. It was raised when this Republic took a start, 
but experience has proved that it was not well founded. It was raised when Switzer¬ 
land proposed to make use of the initiative and referendum, but the testimony is 
strong that the people have exercised their powers wisely and have reached splendid 
results. There can be no g(md reason for raising it here and now. If the people are 
admitted to be intelligent enough to decide the issues as they do now, when various 
questions are bunched together and must be accepted with, and inseparable from, 
certain candidates, certainly it is improper to claim that they are not intelligent 
enough to decide one single question standing separate and alone. The people know 
better what they want than others know it for them, and what really is feared is that 
the people are intelligent enough. . a I aa-j „ as a «■ u,iis 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


25 


\\ ho are the people anyway? One might think they are all the fools left after all 
the wise men had been sent to the legislature, to hear some talk. They do not seem to 
lealize that many commonplace and some foolish men are made legislative members; 
that most of them are not retiirned; that not all are honest: that there are more men 
of legislative experience outride than inside the legislature, and that there are thou¬ 
sands of men in the State as intelligent and competent to judge what proper legislation 
IS, and in many cases more so, than those who may lie thrust temporarily into power 
as lawmakers. 

PEOPLE WILL NOT VOTE. 

People are too apathetic and will not vote on measures, object some. The answer 
is that all who ought to vote will do so. There has been considerable agitation for 
educational qualification for voters. The ignorant will vote for men as readily as the 
more intelligent at present. It is enough for the voter to know that he don’t like 
Smith, but that Jones is a good fellow, when he votes for men, but when he is brought 
face to face with a law or an amendment to the Constitution that he does not under¬ 
stand. he knows just what he ought to—ahstains from voting, and thus he disfranchises 
himself automatically without needing law for it. 

PEOPLE TOO ANXIOUS TO VOTE. 

Another objection that is almost the exact opposite of the former one is that people 
are too impulsive and radical. There is less reason for making it against direct legis¬ 
lation than a ])urely repi'esentative system. Hasty action can be and sometimes is 
taken by such a small body as a legislature during excitement. Such quick results 
can not be reached by the people, l)ut a question must first be discussed and deliber¬ 
ated on before it can be disposed of by them. Experience in Switzerland shows that 
the people are conservative, and will vote ‘‘no” until they are convinced that “yes” 
is right. There the conservatives are the staunch supporters of direct legislation for 
that reason. 

PEOPLE MIGHT BE CORRUPTED. 

Still another objection is that the people, too, might be corrupted. It is not prac¬ 
tical to get through a measure before the people by bribery. There would be too many 
to buy even if they would accept bribes. But they would not accept them. Even if 
they were'not honest, they would not vote against their own interests, and corporations 
could not afford to ])ay more for the laws tliey desired than they were worth, while 
now they only have to center their efforts on a few individuals. 

OBJECTION TO THE NORTH DAKOTA AMENDMENT, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 

It is unconstitutional, they say. This objection is a common one to everything. 
One of the reasons assigned for claiming this bill to be unconstitutional, is that it 
amends several sections of the Constitution, but refers to only one in the title. There 
are no grounds to fear that it will be found defective on that account. Among various 
reasons for this statement is the following; The Oregon amendment was drawn like 
ours in this respect. The provisions in the Oregon constitution in regard to amending 
it, expressing Hie subject of the bill in the title and the different sections affected 
by the referendum amendment, are the same as in our Constitution. The Oregon 
amendment went before the supreme court of the State and was sustained. The 
attorneys who tried to have the amendment overthrown do not seem to have con¬ 
sidered the question raised here worthy'of attention, and some of our best attorneys 
say there is no good reason for the contention. 

PROPORTION OF SIGNATURES TO PETITIONS TOO SMALL. 

The proportion of signatures required on a petition for the initiative and referendum 
is too small. This seems to be the first objection raised wherever direct legislation is 
introduced, but which is heard no more of after direct legislation goes into operation. 
The number of signatures should be so high that trivial or foolish questions can not 
easily be forced on the people for their consideration, but not so high that it will prove 
a hardship or a serious obstacle to get meritorious questions up for decision. If 
this amendment should go into effect it would then, or soon thereafter, require 
8,000 voters to order an initiative. This might not be difficult if the question was 
well understood and thoroughly discussed beforehand, Imt the initiative would more 
frequently be used on questions that are comparatively new. Those who undertook 
to get the signatures would have to do so for the public good and without compensation. 
They would have to spend time and money on correspondence and securing stationery. 


26 MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


and a large number of men would have to be found that would volunteer to circulate 
petitions. If each one got 20 names it would require 400 men to collect 8,000 names. 

Five per cent for the referendum and 8 per cent for the initiative is the rule in 
Oregon and most other States, while in Switzerland less than 4 per cent is required 
to initiate laws or amendments to the constitution. There is no complaint from other 
States that the proportion of signatures they have decided on is too small, nor is there 
any demand for a change. It seems that the most reasonable thing for us to do is to 
adopt such a proportion of signatures as other States have found to be proper until 
such a time as we have learned by our own experience that a different proportion is 
better. 

SHOULD INITIATIVE APPLY TO CONSTITUTION? 

Another objection to our amendment which does not appear to be commonly made 
to similar bills in other States is that the initiative can be used for amending 
the constitution. There is no good reason for the objection. We now have the 
referendum for the constitution and all amendments in every State in the Union 
but one—Delaware. As the more important and fundamental part of our laws 
the constitution has been dignified by having it approved by the people at 
the polls before going into effect. Now will we not only raise the common laws 
to the same dignity by extending the referendum to them, but raise them to a 
higher level even than the constitution by applying the initiative to them but not 
to the constitution? If the referendum and initiative both were applicable to laws, 
it could truly be said that the people could get any law that the majority 
desired. But this could not be said of the constitution if the initiative could not 
be used for it, for there would then be no means to get amendments before the peo¬ 
ple for their decision except as they are doled out by the legislatures. We would 
then have popular laws, but lack popular constitutional provisions. Can we con¬ 
sistently claim that legislatures are not good enough to have absolute power over 
laws, but they are good enough to have absolute power over the -more important 
function of deciding what constitutional amendments the people shall be permitted 
to vote on? Is there any sense, for instance, in insisting that even though a very 
large majority of the intelligent people believe that the United States Senators should 
be elected by a direct vote they should be prevented from making the change by 
extraordinary difficulties—be compelled to await the sweet will of a bunch of poli¬ 
ticians in the United States Senate that are beneficiaries under the present system? 

CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE STABLE. ,, ^ 

Some say that we want a stable and safe constitution. Yes, but that does not mean 
a stationary one. Large bodies move slowly. People are naturally conservative. 
They progress only gradually, and that constitution is most stable and safe that just 
keeps pace with them. The United States Constitution has practically remained 
unchanged one hundred and twenty years, and it is now proposed to bring it up to 
our times. How? By holding a constitutional convention and building a new Con¬ 
stitution. This is the stability of the present system—jumping forward one hundred 
and twenty years in one jump. This surely is going steady by jerks. It is like the 
balky horse pulls his load. Much safer would be the constitution that could be built 
up step by step ,through the initiative and much more stable in the true sense of the 
term. 

If the initiative and referendum could have been used during the agitation of the 
slavery question there probably would have been no civil war. After the war had 
started President Lincoln tried to have it stopped by making use of these principles. 
He sent Edmund Kirke and Reverend Doctor Jaques, colonel of the Seventy-third 
Illinois Volunteers, to Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, to propose that the 
issues in controversy should be decided peaceably by a vote of all the citizens of the 
United States. This proposition was turned down by Mr. Davis. The majority won 
pyway, but by bullets instead of ballots. But there can hardly be any doubt that 
if there had existed some means by which the people could have expressed their will 
directly there would have been no war. 

Those constitutions and laws are safest that are backed up by a majority of the 
people and that country and state is safest that furnish proper means for learning 
what constitution and laws the majority will back up. 

[ r TOO EASY TO AMEND. 

Some think tnat it will become too easy to amend the Constitution through the 
initiative. On the contrary. Now an amendment is passed through two legislative 
assemblies and comes, without hardly any agitation, almost stealthily, and frequently 



MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 27 


as a surprise, before the voters at the polls. That is easy—for all amendments that 
It suits the legislature to submit. But an amendment started by the initiative comes 
into publicity from the _ beginning. Before the petitions have been completed it 
inust lie discussed and fairly well understood. It is then discussed before the legisla¬ 
tive assembly, which may offer one of their own on the same question to be sent in 
competition with the other before the people for them to take their choice. Under 
these circumstances the people will not only have to understand the principles, but 
the details, too, will have to be scrutinized. Then dull and indifferent would those 
voters be who would meet the question in the booth unprepared. 

CONSTITUTION FUNDAMENTAL. 

!■ But the constitution is fundamental and is in no great need of change, they say. 
In the North Dakota constitution there are certain fundamental clauses such as that; 
“All political power is inherent in the people; that North Dakota shall be a part of 
the Union; that we shall have trial by jury and no slavery.” But as not only a 
majority, but practically all the people, believe in these principles, they should in 
no way be affected if the initiative could be applied to the constitution. But in addi¬ 
tion to some fundamental declarations in line with what has been stated, the North 
Dakota constitution deals with a mass of detail. It prescribes in detail how the legis¬ 
lative assembly shall conduct its business. It gives the number of State officers and 
the exact salary in most cases. It prescribes methods of taxation that we have 
already found it necessary to change by two amendments. The fact js there is much 
ordinary legislation incorporated in the constitution, and when conditions change 
there will be the same need of changing that as there is of changing laws. 

Sometimes it is not that what is in the constitution is wrong, but that which we need 
is not in it at all. 

HOW PEOPLE VOTE. 

In 1906 ten questions were submitted to the voters of Oregon through the initiative. 
To the objection that this was too many for one election, one of Oregon’s prominent 
attorneys answered that the objection was more apparent than real, for these were 
questions that the people wanted sulimitted before, but were prevented by politicians. 

The following were the questions; 

Woman’s suffrage amendment; Yes, 36,928; no, 46,971. Rejected by 10,043; total 
vote, 83,899; vote for governor, 96,715. 

Modification of local option law, proposed by antiprohibitionists; Yes, 35,397; no, 
45,144; rejected by 9,747; total vote, 80,541. 

For a law abolishing tolls on the Mount Hood and Barlow road and providing for its 
ownership by the State; Yes, 31,525; no, 44,525; rejected by 13,000; total vote, 
76,050. 

For constitutional amendment providing method for amending constitution and 
applying the referendum to all laws affecting constitutional conventions and amend¬ 
ments; Yes, 47,661; no, 18,751; approved by 28,910; total vote, 66,412. 

For constitutional amendment giving cities and towns exclusive power to enact and 
amend their charter; Yes, 52,567; no, 19,942; approved by 32,625; total vote, 72,507. 

For constitutional amendment to allow the State printing, binding, and printer’s 
compensation to be regulated by law at any time; Yes, 63,749; no, 9,571; approved 
by 54,178; total vote, 73,.320. 

For constitutional amendment for the initiative and referendum on local, special, 
and municipal laws and parts of laws; Yes, 47,778; no, 16,755; approved by 31,043; 
total vote, 64,513. 

For the antipass law; Yes, 57,281; no, 16,779; approved by 40,502; total vote, 74,060. 

For a law requiring sleeping car companies, refrigerator car companies, and oil com¬ 
panies to pay an annual license on gross earnings—proposed by the Grange; Yes, 69,537; 
no, 6,440; approved by 63,195. 

For a similar law taxing express, telegraph, and telephone companies, also proposed 
by the Grange; Yes, 70,872; no, 6,360; approved by 64,512—lltol; total vote, 77,232. 

NO REASON FOR PREVENTING VOTE ON EITHER CLASS. 

Here are five proposals for law and five for amendments to the constitution, three of 
them being rejected and seven approved. In looking over this list is it possible for 
anyone to find the least reason for preventing the people from voting on one class and 
not on the other? Is it good policy, is it just to prevent people from having what they 
show they want by such decisive majorities? Is it anything but quibblmg to say that 
the people might vote on the taxation of corporations, but not on extending the initia¬ 
tive and referendum to cities until the politicians permitted them? Would it not be 


28 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


a burlesque on popular government to allow people to vote on a Mount Hood and Har¬ 
low road proposition that only 31,000 favored, but deny them the right to vote on the 
regulation of the State printing that nearly 64,000 were in favor of? 

In Switzerland constitutional amendments can be initiated by the people; in Ore¬ 
gon the same. We have heard no complaint from either place that this provision does 
not work well, or any intimation that the initiative ought not to be applied to the con¬ 
stitution. Oklahoma has adopted the same principles, and a copy of the Oregon 
amendment will no doubt be adopted by the people of Missouri next election. The 
initiative adopted by the late constitutional convention in Michigan provides for amend¬ 
ing the constitution alone and can not be used for statutory laws at all. It did not occur 
the people of these States that the people should have less voice in shaping the constitu¬ 
tion than the laws, and thus reverse the former policy which gave them a greater and 
more direct control over the constitution than the laws. L?' 

AFFECTS RESUBMISSION LIKE OTHER QUESTIONS. 

But we might have resubmission, they say. We certainly can have that question 
raised as well as any other, but what of it? Must we offer a different bill in North 
Dakota and Maine from the one we offer in Oregon and Missouri? Can we have com¬ 
plete direct legislation—complete rule by the majority in the States where there is no 
prohibition, but not in States where prohibition has been introduced? In that case, 
fortunate were Switzerland and Oregon that they had no prohibition to prevent them 
from getting an ideal government. 

people’s rule and prohibition not inconsistent. 

There is nothing inherent in prohibition, however, that should interfere with us 
having a popular government in its full sense and based on the principles of majority 
rule. Oklahoma adopts both direct legislation and prohibition complete, without 
reservations or exceptions, and commenting thereon the Methodist Sunday-school 
paper, the Epworth Herald, of March 30,1907, has the following editorial: “A new 
State is coming into the Union. And it comes with a new standard. For over a 
hundred days the constitutional convention of Oklahoma has been in session. It has 
completed its work at last. And a fine.piece of work it is. Here are some of the things 
for wdiich this new State—the star of the Southwest—stands: Initiative and refer¬ 
endum,” and so forth down the list. The Herald emphasizes the prohibition clause, 
but puts the initiative and referendum first on the list of good provisions. Nothing 
inconsistent between the two propositions was found there. 

There was no reason that it should appear differently in this State, but as soon as 
it was introduced the opponents of the bill sought to discredit it by the cry of ‘T’esub- 
mission.” Still 5 resubmission members voted against it in the house last winter on 
its first passage and 2 against it Die second time, when 24 Prohibition votes were cast 
for it. That this cry of resubmission had a tendency to increase the relative vote of 
resubmissioriists for the bill there is no doubt, but it was brought about, not by the 
friends, but by the enemies of the bill, and they should not find fault with the result. 

PROHIBITIONISTS ADVOCATES OF DIRECT LEGISLATION, 

It would come with poor grace for temperance people to oppose a complete direct- 
legislation measure, as they have advocated these principles persistently in other 
States and the nation. The late Miss Frances Willard, president of the National and 
World’s Women’s Christian Temperance Union, expressed herself as follows, with 
full knowledge that it would be published: 

“I believe in direct legislation and think it is so greatly needed that language can 
not express the dire necessity under which we find ourselves. The reign of the people 
is the one thing that my soul desires to see; the reign of the politician is a public 
ignominy. I also believe that direct legislation is certain to become the great political 
issue in the immediate future. The people are being educated by events. They 
are coming to see that there is no hope for reform under the existing system of voting. 
It IS the duty of every citizen to carefully study this great question.” 

John G. Woolley, Prohibition candidate for President, temperance writer, and 
lecturer, says: “It ought to be possible for the people to order a plebiscite upon the 
liquor question or any other question that seems great enough to them. * * * The 
initiative and referendum would be dignified, conservative, simple, safe, powerful. 

* * * I am by instinct and training an adherent to the Hamiltonian idea of gov¬ 
ernment, but my reason, my intelligence, impels me to assent to direct legislation as 
necessary to the continuance of our free institutions.” 






MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


29 


IIoii. \\ . E. Johnson, an active Prohibitionist, wJio was sent as a special Govern¬ 
ment ollicer to enforce the prohibition laws of Indian Territory, and who tliere worked 
for both prohibition and referendum clauses in the Oklahoma constitution, writes: 
“ Practically every Prohibition convention of recent years has indorsed the principles 
of clirect legislation, and practically all Prohibitionists are in favor of it. I firmly 
believe that in the long run the prohibitionists everywhere have everything to gain 
and nothing to lose by the adoption of the principle.” Later he says: “As a matter 
of fact, the Prohibitionists have got to trust the people whether they want to or not, 
both with the enactment of prohibitory laws and the enforcement of the same. The 
prolific source of trouble in the past is that the people have had too little to do with 
the enactment and the enforcement of the laws relating to the liquor traffic.” 

Mr. E. McKercher, member of the national Prohibition committee from Oregon, 
writes: “The idea is, of course, preposterous that the people can not get an amendment 
to their constitution submitted until two sets of servants say they may—the ones you 
have now and the ones you may have one or two years hence. * * * i trust the 
Prohibitionists will not resist the amendment at the polls. Certainly the public sen¬ 
timent against the saloons is stronger everywhere than when North Dakota adopted 
her constitution, and there ought to be no danger of reversal.” 

“It is also gratifying to know that so many of the faithful supporters of the prohibi¬ 
tion cause in North Dakota favor the initiative and referendum complete, regardless 
of whose ox is gored.” 

Prof. PI. PI. Aaker, of P^'argo, whose political work has largely been done for prohi¬ 
bition: Plon. George B. Winship, whose influence through the Herald, has been instru¬ 
mental to quite an extent in moulding and upholding prohibition sentiment; ex-Sen- 
ator James McCormick, of Churches J^'erry, and ex-^enator Richard McCarten, of 
('ogswell, who both have been consistent champions of prohibition; John Carmody, 
of Hillsboro; a large number of the professors of our higher institutions of learning, 
and a great many others, of course, besides a good portion of the papers of this State. 

Tlie Grafton News and Times says: “Much is being written about the attitude of 
Prohibitionists toward the proposed initiative and referendum law. Some opine that 
the prohibition sentiment is strongly against the law, because it will give the State 
an opportunity to resubmit the prohibition question to the voters. This opinion 
seems to ])e o^-erdrawn. There may be those to whom the prohibition question has 
become a hobby so strong that reason has been lost sight of, but that the mass of an 
enlightened public should so regard it is impossible. The best law ever made is 
tyranny, when opposed to the will of a majority of a free people. The initiative and 
referendum, if carried into effect, will mean that the citizens of the State will have 
a direct voice in making the laws. It is reform, sweeping, magnificent. To oppose 
it because it affects any one measure is absurd. 

“Furthermore, the prohibition law would be in no danger from resubmission. Pro¬ 
hibition is marching forward, not backward. A proposition to legalize saloons in 
North Dakota would be voted down by a tremendous majority. To be sure, the law 
as it stands, is not entirely effective, but what it needs is improvement, not repeal.” 

The St. Thomas Times says: “The Times is not sure that the initiative and referen¬ 
dum bill passed by the last legislature is absolutely right. The percentage of votes 
required on a petition to change the constitutional provision seems exceedingly small. 
However, our prohibition fiiends are certainly acting in a most inconsistent manner 
when they oppose the new idea, simply on the ground that it will give the people a 
chance to vote again on the question of constitutional prohibition. Majority rule is 
a fundamental principle of republican government. Without a complete and willing 
acquiescence of the minority to the will of the majority, no democracy can long exist. 
If the present constitutional x>i‘OA'ision is being retained by virtue of a minority senti¬ 
ment, then the majority should have the right to change back to the open saloon. 
The timid Prohiljitionist who fear the record of the vote is damaging the cause of pro¬ 
hibition. The law has been of great benefit. It has been advantageous to the whole 
State, as a commonwealth wherein a high state of morals obtain. It has been bene¬ 
ficial to the individual citizen from both a moral and a financial standpoint, and it is 
absurd to fear the result of another vote on this question. With the record of eighteen 
or twenty years of ijrohibition, the majority for its retention, in the event of another 
vote, would be overwhelming.” 

COMPROMISE BILL NOT PRACTICAL. 

It has been suggested that a compromise might be made, so a direct legislation bill 
could be carried without a fight. This could not be done if attempted. It would mean 
two years more to \Vait and a new bill. There is no one authorized to make any agree¬ 
ment or that can guarantee that one made will be carried out. A compromise was 


30 


MEMOKIAL OF INITIATIVE AND KEFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


made in the house last winter so constitutional amendments could not be reached by 
the initiative, but the senate did not agree and put the amendment in again. If we 
are to continue wrangling about the form of the bill, we may have no bill at all. If 
this bill is to be defeated let those take the responsibility that bring it about. It 
is as good as the direct-legislation people of the United States can write. It 
is satisfactory in other States where they have some experience along this line. It is 
consistent with the fundamental idea of direct legislation, that the majority shall rule. 
About one-third of the direct legislation organizations in the United States l)ear the 
name of “Majority Rule Leagues,” implying that this a synonym for direct legislation, 

“majority rule” the fundamental principle of direct legislation. 

When some say they are in favor of the principles of direct legislation, but opposed 
to certain features, it shows that they are not familiar with the construction direct- 
legislation people put on the term. As a rule they are not in favor of the full initiative 
and referendum or majority rule at all, but for such application of it as suits them and 
against it where it does not suit them. One who is thoroughly in sympathy with the 
principles of direct legislation must be fair enough to accept the verdict of the majority, 
even when the majority goes against his wishes. As an illustration of what some 
understood by being in favor of direct legislation, take the Montana amendment. 
It was trimmed up in Heinze’s and Clarke’s stronghold to suit the corporation interests. 
Under its provisions the Constitution can not be amended through the intiative. Nei¬ 
ther the initiative nor the referendum can be used on laws affecting constitutional 
amendments or constitutional conventions, nor can they be used for laws that are 
local, nor for appropriation laws, nor for laws that are special. There are several other 
restrictions to their use, so that the exceptions cover more ground than the rule. The 
people of Montana asked bread and got a stone. It was a copy of this bill that was intro¬ 
duced in North Dakota last winter and came very near passing. It did not come as 
near giving direct legislation as McKenzie’s bill did to givmg primary election, and that 
was called a fake and an abortion. Under the Montana amendment only two of the 
ten questions that were voted on in Oregon last election, could have been submitted to 
the people. The bther eight would have been barred. 

Some such freak of a bill or one with even more restrictions would have to be pro¬ 
posed if the people should be prevented from voting on prohibition. For there would 
be little or no advantage to prohibition to shut off the vote on constitutional amend¬ 
ments if prohibition laws could be freely submitted. This piecemeal adoption of 
direct legislation, however, is much like the method of dehorning adopted by the 
farmer who sawed off a piece of the cow’s horn each day so it would not hurt so much, 
and the results will no doubt be equally satisfactory. 

PROHIBITIONISTS NOT JUSTIFIED IN OPPOSING IT. 

Prohibitionists of North Dakota profess to favor direct legislation. But if they, op¬ 
pose this bill they must oppose the fundamental principle of direct legislation, ignore 
all the advantages that it gives, and go against it solely because prohibition as well as 
other questions can be voted under it. Yet they can not hope to prevent resubmission 
from passing tlu-ough the legislature under our present system if the resubmission 
sentiment has a majority of the people behind it any more than the Prohibitionists of 
South Dakota could under similar circumstances. 

About the only justification offered for Prohibitionists to oppose direct legislation is 
that the liquor interests might flood this State with lies after they had raised a large 
campaign fund. But the conditions are different now than before"! Then they could 
lie about Maine, now they will have to lie about North Dakota, and if they do, we will 
know it. The people have tried prohibition all these years and know how it works. 
The saloons that formerly were strong and fought desperkely to save their business are 
all gone, too. Furthermore, Prohibitionists now have sevkal strong temperance or¬ 
ganizations. They have trained speakers and a large portion of the press of the State 
behind them, and should welcome the opportunity that direct legislation would give 
them to make their majority effective in getting what they want without asking by 
your leave of any politician. 

No public question should be considered from the narrow and selfish standpoint of 
how it will affect oneself only, but from the broad and patriotic one of how it will affect 
the largest number of people. Will the initiative and referendum be a detriment or 
a blessing to the people of the State, is the question that Prohibitionists and anti- 
Prohibitionists, Republicans and Democrats, insurgents and stalwarts should solve, 
and if due regard is given to results elsewhere and this question is considered seriously’ 
honestly, and without prejudice there can be only one answer. • 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE, AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


31 


OREGON AND NORTH DAKOTA COMPARED. 

Ill Oregon a practical primary election law was adopted in 1904, through the ini¬ 
tiative without any friction or disrupting of political parties, and by such a decisive 
majority that all opposition was silenced. In addition to this, local option, taxation 
of corporations, initiative and referendum for cities, antipass legislation, home rule 
for cities, and several other questions were taken up through the initiatiA'e, discussed 
and disposed of in the most orderly manner, according to the wish of a majority of 
the people. During this same time we have been carrying on a terrific battle in 
North Dakota about primary elections, and after much political complications got 
through a law that is more ambiguous and less complete than the primary law of 
Oregon, and we have done nothing at all about all the other important measures that 
the people of Oregon have finished up. W’e have done our share of agitation in this 
State about corporation and railroad domination in politics. The complaint has be¬ 
come chronic here that our legislators do not comply with the wish of the people; 
that political bosses dictate legislation; that corporations afe favored at the expense 
of the people; that the old gang control politics, and that the railroads charge too much 
for their services and pay too little of the taxes. Now, what are we going to do about 
it? Are we going to take action and make use of an effective means to correct these 
evils, or are we only to continue to howl about them and follow the calf path? 

In Oregon there were formerly similar complaints. They adopted complete direct 
legislation, and the people commenced at once to adopt constitutional amendments 
and laws for adjusting their relations to the politicians, railroads, and other corpora¬ 
tions as the people wanted them. A bill taxing certain corporations 1 per cent on 
their gross earnings having been defeated by the legislature, was afterwards pro¬ 
posed through the initiative after the 1 per cent taxation had been changed to 2 per 
cent. It was carried at the polls by the overwhelming vote of 11 to 1. Notice the 
contrast. Under a purely representative system the people’s representatives refused 
to tax these corporations 1 i)er cent, under direct legislation the people taxed them 
2 per cent by a vote of 70,872 for to 6,360 against. The people of Oregon have quit 
fooling and gone to work. Would it not be better for us to do the same— 

To continue following in the beaten track. 

And out, and in, and forth, and back. 

And still our deAUous course pursue. 

To keep the path that others do? 

FARMERS SHOULD NOT BEG BUT ACT. 

Think what a spectacle it is for the farmers of North Dakota, with such an overwhelm¬ 
ing majority as they have, to ask meekly, please, Mr. Representative, please, Mr. 
Politician, may Ave not get a little laAv against the corporations, just a little; or please, 
Mr. RepresentatiA'^e, we humbly petition, can we liaA'e just a A^ery small appropria¬ 
tion for the farming interests? More sensible it Avould be for the farmers to insist 
on getting the initiatiA^e and referendum, and then say to their representatives: 
“Do our bidding, and if you can’t or Avon’t, Ave Avill help ourseh'es to AAdiat Ave Avant.” 

JEFFERSON AND LINCOLN INDORSE. ’ ' 

The Democrats hark back to Jefferson, the Republicans to Lincoln. These men 
had this in common, that they had absolute faith in the people. They both believed 
in a popular form of government and that the people should rule. 

Jeferson said: “Governments are republican only in proportion as they embody 
the will of the people and execute it. ” 

Lincoln said: “AIIoav all the governed an equal voice in the government, and 
that and that only iijpself-government.” 

No more direct indorsements could be made to the principles of the initiative and 
referendum, nor could the authority be better. The people never had more able 
or faithful friends than Jefferson and Lincoln. We Avill do them honor and vastly 
benefit ourseh’-es if Ave adopt direct legislation. No other reform ever received such 
strong and unanimous indorsement when tried as this, nor could anything be more 
timely or suitable to remedy the very political ills we complain most of. 

APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE. 

You are the people. It is for you to say what questions you want to vote on, which 
to adopt, and which to reject. There is no sense in preventing yourselves from doing 
what you may want to do. Demand of your representatives that they submit this 


32 


MEMOKIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFEEDNDUM LEAGUE. 


amendment to the people, so you can decide whether you want it or not. Adopt 
the initiative and referendum and take your stand as independent men. Do not 
consent any longer to have guardians appointed over you, but run your political busi¬ 
ness as you do your other business. Direct your servants, prevent corruption, cut 
down expenses, ask for justice, and take no less. This will give such a training that 
the standard of our citizens will advance immeasurably. They will gain in intelli¬ 
gence, become rpore self-confident, and develop a keener sense of right and wrong. 
Patriotism will be greatly increased when all citizens take an active part in govern¬ 
ment and consider it truly theirs. The voters will then become worthy of the name 
they are given in a republic—“sovereigns,” and the great questions of corporations, 
trusts, labor and capital, prohibition, etc., will then be met without dread. Life 
■^vill then be worth more to us, for— 

We live in deeds, not years, in thoughts, not breaths; 

In feelii:j^s, not in figures on a dial. 


Appendix XI. 

> National Programme, 

THE RESTORATION OF THE PEOPLE’S RULE AS THE RESULT OF THIS YEAR’S CAMPAIGN. 

This is to be accomplished by cooperating with the progressive parties and their 
candidates, the plan being to systematically question the candidates of both great 
parties, asking them, in substance, “If elected, will you vote to restore the people’s 
rule?” This will raise an issue which the people will understand and will vote for. 

One hundred and fourteen members of the present National House were thus pledged. 
The questions were presented by the National Federation for People’s Rule, with the 
indorsement of the American Federation of Labor. This year the questions will also 
be indorsed by some of tlie farmers’ organizations, while the National Federation for 
People’s Rule is merged into this Initiative and Referendum I^eague, above described. 
You are invited to join. 

PROPOSED SYSTEM FOR OBTAINING NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL 

AMENDMENTS, 

One in which— 

1. The voters will possess an option to ballot direct on national questions and 
thereby instruct their representatives; and 

2. The representatives will be pledged to obey instructions. 

This will merely restore the right which the people possessed before the State and 
national party conventions arose, during 1823-32. At town meetings in New England, 
and elsewhere at mass meetings, the people instructed at will. The modern system 
is the advisory initiative and advisory referendum combined with the pledging of 
candidates to obey instructions. This advisory-vote system can be established by 
a Federal statute and State statutes, as the result of this year’s campaign. 

Then the system can be used to secure legislative reforms and Constitutional amend¬ 
ments, including one for the initiative and referendum. 

THE QUESTIONS TO CANDIDATES. 

For Congress: 

1. To vote for the proposed Federal statute; and 

2. To obey instructions, by constituents. 

For Presidency: 

1. To approve the proposed law whenever Congress shall pass it; and 

2. To obey the people’s instructions. 

For legislatures: 

1. To vote only for such candidates for the United States Senate as are pledged to the 
above programme. 

2. To vote to so instruct the hold-over Senators, 

3. To vote to enact a statute authorizing the people to secure a special election to 
instruct their United States Senator should he refuse to obey the legislature's instruc¬ 
tion. 

4. To vote to enact a State law that shall provide election machinery for taking a 
referendum vote on national questions whenever Congress shall so order. 

For governor: 

To sign the foregoing bills if the legislature shall pass them. 



MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


33 


State Programmes. 

To be agreed upon within each State. 

> County Programmes. 

To be agreed upon within each county. 

Nonpartisan Union of Patriots. 

All who are opposed to the rule of the few, whether by machine politics or vested 
interests behind machine politics, certainly favor the restoration of the people’s rule— 
their own rule. The American Federation of Labor and some of the farmers’ organiza¬ 
tions have indorsed the initiative and referendum league’s questions to candidates. 
Will you, too, join the movement? 

An Ideal System of Advisory Initiative. 

The nonpartisan forces are a^eed that the questions to candidates shall include a 
request for an initiative system in which the measures will be filed with the Secretary 
of State and copies shall be transmitted by him to Congress, where public hearings 
will be held, in the usual manner. Competing measures will be framed by Congress 
if it shall so desire. Arguments for and against each measure should be framed by 
representatives of the petitioners and of Congress. This written debate, together with 
the proposed measures and the referendum questions, should be printed by the Gov¬ 
ernment and a copy of the pamphlet mailed to each voter. Thus the truth can be 
gotten to the voters, and nothing short of this procedure will accomplish it. 

On election day the ignorant and careless voters will automatically disfranchise 
themselves, as in the past, by failing to mark the referendum questions. 

Constitutional amendments and legislative reforms can be voted upon by the people 
at the November (1910) election, and such bills as receive a majority of the votes in 
a majority of the Congressional districts and in a majority of the States will be enacted 
into law at the following session of Congress. 

Only Pathway to Reasonably Prompt Relief. 

This programme is the only pathway to reasonably prompt relief. The Senate is 
the monopolists’ Gibraltar, and the only way to get progressive legislation through 
it during the next three years is by means of this programme. See questions to candi¬ 
dates for the legislatures. 

And Better than a Constitutional Convention. 

The advisory initiative will be better than a constitutional convention, because— 

1. There will be no monopoly of the power to propose amendments. 

2. The advance will be conservatively progressive, for of course the constitutional 
limitations against confiscation will remain intact, the Supreme Court firmly stand, 
and both the Executive Departments and Congress still be controlled by an old-line 
party. But the people will have become the sovereign power. 

Strategic Points in the Programme. 

1. The demand is for the restoration of the right to instruct, and the system can 
be installed by statute law in combination wuth the pledging of candidates to obey 
instructions. 

2. We do not demand direct legislation in combination with Congress, because a 
constitutional amendment would be required, which can not be secured through 
existing machine rule. Furthermore, such a system of government would be new, 
and therefore the plan would be accepted less readily than the one for the reestablish¬ 
ment of the right to instruct. 

3. Restoration of the right to instruct has become the paramount issue, because the 
system can be completely installed as the result of this year’s campaign; whereas it 
would have been impracticable to make the initiative and referendum the great 
issue, as it would have taken years to install them, even if it were possible to secure 
the constitutional amendment. 

4. Ours is the only programme whereby reasonably prompt action in the Senate 
can be secured. 

S. Doc. 529, 60-1-3 


34 


MEMORIAL OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM LEAGUE. 


5. Legislation by the Supreme Court has outlawed the farmers’ unions and labor 
unions, and the Senate will undoubtedly uphold this ruling until the people instruct 
otherwise. 

6. Years ago the Supreme Court judges installed government by injunction, the 
main effect being to abolish jury trial in labor cases; and Congress and the President 
have continued the system. Where the people’s rule has been restored it has resulted 
in the reestablishment of jury trial, as is evidenced by the law in Oklahoma and the 
absence of government by injunction in Oregon. In Montana the initiative is being 
used to abolLsh government by injunction. 

7. Valuation of the physical plants of all the interstate railways, and of the other 
natural interstate monopolies can quickly be secured through the national advisory 
initiative, and in no other way. 

8. Legislation authorizing combinations of capital engaged in interstate commerce 
can quickly be secured through the national advisory initiative, and the governmen¬ 
tal regulations will be such as will really protect the people. 

9. Through the national advisory initiative a tariff bill in the interests of the 
majority can be enacted. Such a law will protect those who work, as is the case in 
Switzerland. 

10. Through the national advisory initiative the nullification of State prohibition 
laws by Congress can be terminated, and national legislation on child labor and 
other important measures can be secured. 

11. A statute can be secured for proportional representation in the National 
House, whereby each industrial interest will be represented in proportion to 't'! 
number and by its greatest leaders. 

12. Statute law can be secured tor direct nomination of candidates for the Presi¬ 
dency and Vice-Presidency. 

13.. Constitutional amendments can be submitted for direct election of United 
States: Senators, and for the initiative and referendum. 

14. The Supreme Court will be continued, and its jurisdiction will not be encroached 
upon; but its judgments will no longer be final for the people’s sovereignty will have 
been restored. 


0 


LEJL ’10 







•■ ■ ’• -■ . ij}"'* ■" 


i ' .4 #v—f ^ 






;r •- 




}.w. 

• ' 


•, ::•; ■ •' ■•■< Av' i 

i- '- < .■,i^’_v,.;- 


r 




I 






4^'-- tU ,-. 

. r. - 



' ^ -T 

' s' '■ ” 

'//•■. -■ ’f^ '. I 



♦ 



w 


•’ m4t 1^ ' • 

'.* ‘. • v,/i 


W-- • '.■■ ^ ■ -A'fW. ,i- i. ' Wt- 

t 








.•-'i 


• f 


.V( 

i-A'i 


ik; '..r^, '■ ,-* 

. ^1 ^1 * ' 


__ 



\ r 




4. ••■ 


'/>V, 

''t-i'\i r.T'. V • 


*■ '!*■■ ' 1 ‘ J*’ r. 'j ' < ^'■•'. 'V.^ ■■'v-'J,. . "x;,/ u .'•■ '.; 

•. . ■ .4 i-.' *, . .- ■>■';. r ‘ . .* > 








,.f'* 



► i ,J -r- 


r*^. .‘- 


‘ ft 


1. 




Fi « ’»' ■ * ■ 

r ’ ''u 



■uVal/wa^* 0‘/■- ' ' 

■K ^ 


> 


Lvr 




'c; 


d^k.-K. 


t;' 


%> 


lk 




% •- 





> - I > ’ 

M ’ -' .. 












•.iv5.^v, ..vr' 

■' '* ■ , ■ •■■/;,.*•* •• •^- .. 


Cr 


vr'i^ ■ 


•"■ ■ ■‘- .. • . , ; 5 .'^^ 

. *■ ' iT’,: , VK- , - ■^^ ■ 


r. 




^ ’ 1^:.' ' j V'*- ' - f '/‘ —j 

. ;. A vV* f ' 1 

I*’• * 'V. : ‘H. .'I 




^ • 


1.* 

• 1 . 


. •. '1 
t 


^ m ■ 

T v '^ . • ^ 



' f * . •.'. ’A' ^ ' . y ,v V . 

■;’ :/v ,>-:r U' 

, . , ..j 4 ■ ■ ' •' ■' '-.-‘ii - 


I ''V ■ >L- 

-.N. ‘•i' -i ■ v 

* * .‘j. I * ^' 


» ».;^T 

■»V 

I ' * 


:;t; 


.. \ ’ ‘ 


•¥»\ 


I A 


r^:"-w-'-> 

■^>-T ' ■ • / ^ 

4 V ':• ! .7 ■ ' “' 


■ .<* • 


t i. 


• . ^ , pf 

* !■ ^ ' 1 


. “i 


•' '■■ ’ . -0, 


V*‘ ’ ■ ^' 

J-;"; r- 


►T 



i f V,.' - V ^ 

., (■ •'V i • ‘ ’. ■^;..„ 

' ■■>'.Vi'* '■/■■"■* ■■■ '- •■ 


',»* f-4.- -I-*'*’’ ' ’ 

u/I> *■: I • 


-*>7 IJV»-^ ! . * 


.-■ w* 


T 




j,.., 


: tf 

- IJ. SI ♦ Hlid • ■ J ■* vTw «• 


y • '“ , : ^»^i^V.,.M . '^r;• ■■•/ •'• jai; 

iJ&V} *■%*'* »'#■' ‘■•'0* ■• '■ ‘ *** /? < »Ilf' .'^., •'; 


.-A 


I 

i- 

^1 ;r’>^ 




“h . 


SJ’ * 

i- ,' t '' 

•* 

•V>’ 

• 

f ■ '• t 

-V ■■■ 

•*(v ■' •’' '■ 



'tL:. 


• ^ _• 

1 

_■» 

4 ■ 



11 




4 ' U 


. V 


I 

► • '. 




' •'- ■ 
•/. ■ 


t , 




'’r^ r» 



■\. 







'j' ■ J 




, ■ •^'. 'V' '* . 

■■■ 


61.. 


V ■ ' ■^ 

■ 

'4,\ •' 


L -.- 4 





:^'7: 













I 



1 

5 


1 





